Quote from: gleichman;253779I'm sure you believe what you're saying...

And you believe what you're saying. So the best way of finding out which of us is right, if either, is to look at the information, and discuss it.

X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers.
Y is the die roll.
Mx are the modifiers.

Thus: X = Y + Mx

If Y, as a variable, is determined only by the die roll, and no M stands for Morale, the value of Y is unchanged by varying morale conditions: it is solely determined by the out-of-game factors controlling the die roll.

Do you agree with that? If not, please show how two character's different morale abilities are influencing X. If two characters have different morale abilities, but these do not change X, then the effect of morale is not modeled in the system, but ignored in favor of a random value determined out-of-game.

So, what's the matter with gleichman's leaving this site...? Is he leaving or what? I don't quite get it...

Quote from: Fritzs;253781So, what's the matter with gleichman's leaving this site...? Is he leaving or what? I don't quite get it...

He says he's leaving when this thread, the RPG style results thread, and the religion results thread have all gone 2 or 3 days without comment, and have dropped off the front page.

Quote from: Engine;253780And you believe what you're saying. So the best way of finding out which of us is right, if either, is to look at the information, and discuss it.

It won't work.

Quote from: Engine;253780Do you agree with that?

I assume here that you're not addressing my model and refuse to do so. Thus in the interest of being a nice guy (no promise that it will last), I must ask for the following:

Define X for me.

Quote from: gleichman;253784Define X for me.

X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers.

Y is the die roll.
Mx are the modifiers.

Thus: X = Y + Mx

Quote from: Engine;253788X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers.

Y is the die roll.
Mx are the modifiers.

Thus: X = Y + Mx

Yes, I understood that. Is that all it is?

(I'm doing baby steps here for a reason)

Quote from: gleichman;253791Yes, I understood that. Is that all it is?

Yes, X is only the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers, at least in any game I can think of. I mean, there's the random stuff you get from dice [Y], and that goes together with the various specific stuff on your character sheet and in the rules [Mx], and gets you X, the final result. Is there a factor determining X I've forgotten, something beyond what's on your character sheet and in the rules, and what you roll?

Quote from: Engine;253793Yes, X is only the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers, at least in any game I can think of. I mean, there's the random stuff you get from dice [Y], and that goes together with the various specific stuff on your character sheet and in the rules [Mx], and gets you X, the final result. Is there a factor determining X I've forgotten, something beyond what's on your character sheet and in the rules, and what you roll?

Is not X a range of possible outcomes?

Reality is an idea created by humans who far from perfect and all insane to varying degrees.  I reject your sense of reality and replace it with one of my own.  You're the only normal person in the world, we're all nuts and it's up to you to fix us with your wisdom.  Unfortunately I like being broken.

Quote from: gleichman;253779I didn't expect anything else. Makes me rather sad to be proved right however.

It doesn't make you sad, since you started this topic your tone has been nothing but "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it."  Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong or right, just saying you would be unable to admit to any ounce of defeat since you only started this topic completely sure of your own superiority.  This isn't a discussion, it's a lecture and I'm convinced that no argument would be good enough to even make you bend on your own percieved omnipotence.

It's sad because you obviously have a lot to say on the subject of RPGs and if you'd just lighten up a bit your point would probably come across as less the will of god, and more like constructive views worth reading.

It sounds like you don't even want people to see your side.  You actually want them to disagree with you so you can do your best to point out how wrong they are.   The only thing that's sad here is the fact that you do it about RPGs which have a foundation of personal preference and individual perception.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;253774Does it really matter if you ignore me? You're "leaving", remember?

Except, you and I both know he is not.

Quote from: HinterWelt;253751You are technically building an assumption not an abstraction. An assumption frames an abstraction and I believe that is where the confusion is coming from. An abstraction cannot be assumed to be inclusive without the framing assumptions. So, if it is an abstraction of combat, you may well have morale as an assumption of that abstraction, but only the designer would know. Morale may have no function within the abstraction or may be core to it but as observers of the final system, we cannot know what is included or excluded unless there are precedents or leading factors (things like a morale stat). Otherwise, you are making your own assumptions and applying them independent of design. This leads to faulty analysis. This is also Engineering 101.

I'd agree with this.  I'd also note that how well the abstraction works depends on whether there are established facts in the game that break the abstraction.  For example, if you don't have a hit location system, then you are breaking the abstraction if you specify unequal armor coverage and what wounds are like.  For example, someone's armor is specified as a helmet only, and you state in-game that a given wound is on the head.  

With regards to morale, it seems to me that there are plenty of factors that would affect morale that are often specified in the game.  For example, the presence or absence of leader figures.  Killing the enemy leader should have a morale effect, but could have no different effect than killing an underling.  That would be parallel to being mechanically able to specifically target the head, but then finding that a head shot is no different than a limb shot.  

Some morale effects can certainly be role-played by the GM and/or players, and one can assume that the effects average out, but it is an assumption.

Quote from: gleichman;253797Is not X a range of possible outcomes?

Absolutely. Because Y is a range of outcomes - say, 1 through 20 - X can be a range of outcomes as well. Mx will produce some range of outcomes depending on the situation and on the static factors from which it is derived. Once Mx is determined - "your modifiers add up to 7" - the only thing left is the die roll: once that's made, Y is determined for this case - "you roll a 12" - and X "collapses" to a single, specific value: in this case, 19. But before you actually "run the algorithm," the value of X is a range of outcomes, from [the minimum result of Y + the minimum result of Mx] to [the maximum result of Y + the maximum possible Mx].

Now, if Morale - for instance - is assigned an M value, X will depend on the value of Morale. If Morale is assigned to the Y value - abstracted by the die roll, and not with a static factor - X will not depend on the value of Morale, because Y takes nothing into account other than the result of the die.

Quote from: Engine;253812Absolutely.

Good.

Quote from: Engine;253812Because....

Don't jump ahead please or we're end up back where we were.

So X is a range of possible outcomes, upon this we agree.


May I for this exchange define X as the range of All Possible Combat Outcomes?


btw, for this I'm ignoring all posters except for you (edit: and James. I'll always answer James). I intended this thread for you after all.

Quote from: gleichman;253816May I for this exchange define X as the range of All Possible Combat Outcomes?

Well, it should work for things other than combat, too, but you and I both usually go there when success tests come up, so that doesn't really bother me. Aside from that caveat, yeah, it should be, right? It's the minimum possible of both values to the maximum possible for both values, so it would be the complete range of outcomes. [Until the algorithm's run and it stops being a variable and starts being a result, of course.]

Quote from: Engine;253819Well, it should work for things other than combat, too, but you and I both usually go there when success tests come up, so that doesn't really bother me. Aside from that caveat, yeah, it should be, right? It's the minimum possible of both values to the maximum possible for both values, so it would be the complete range of outcomes. [Until the algorithm's run and it stops being a variable and starts being a result, of course.]

Good. We're still in agreement.

So far we have X = Y + Mx, where X equals  the range of All Possible Combat Outcomes.


Please define Mx for me.