There's a near-infinite variety in gaming tastes, and players' tastes change over time. Also there's a wide variety in people's math abilities, both in terms of speed and appreciation of probability and how it actually maps to what they think they want.

Quote from: Phillip;857608On rifle (or other firearm) skill: To the extent that statistics have been collected, a 90% hit rate in actual combat (which is what most game rules are concerned with) would be not just 'expert' but amazing.

It's different enough from being on a range shooting at targets that don't shoot back, that one is not terribly predictive of performance in the other.

I don't have strong opinions about combat in general, because it's not a field I know a lot about. From what non-fiction on combat that I've read, I'd agree that 90% is unrealistic for most actual combat. However, my understanding is still that there is a huge difference between an expert veteran sniper and a new recruit fresh out of basic training. New recruits have an incredibly low chance of hitting enemies in actual combat, on average, and they should probably roll for a large series of shots rather than rolling once per trigger pull.

Quote from: Phillip;857611A) If you've already made up your mind, WTF ask a book for an opinion you don't want? Never mind that it might not be intended to give that opinion in the first place, so you're the rules' bitch by playing your fool self twice.

B) In most cases, you're supposed to be playing with others. In a group of 4 or 5, odds of 3:1 or 4:1 for the best vs. the rest mean the rest can make a worthwhile contribution. Again, WTF with arguing over numbers pulled out of your ass when what you want is simply ALL YOU BASE IS BELONG TO ME?

Starting with the latter first. I use "expert" versus "beginner" to illustrate my believability problem with how skill systems work. However, in a real game, not all characters fall neatly into just one or the other. There are characters with moderate skill, and there are characters who will have differing levels of expert skill, and there may be characters who have superhuman skill.

As for the former, I can and do change the rules. I'm explaining *how* and *why* I sometimes change the rules (or prefer different rules), rather than being limited by them.

By putting in house rules that give more like what I'd expect between beginner and expert, I can handle a wide variety of characters without having to do a lot of off-the-cuff rulings on who can roll for what task, and/or changing around their chances.

Quote from: Phillip;857608On rifle (or other firearm) skill: To the extent that statistics have been collected, a 90% hit rate in actual combat (which is what most game rules are concerned with) would be not just 'expert' but amazing.

It's different enough from being on a range shooting at targets that don't shoot back, that one is not terribly predictive of performance in the other.

Statistically Australian army squad versus squad firefight in a thick covered terrain (jungles) has firing ranges at few meters and hit probability of 2% with average firefight being over in 2 minutes. All data from patrol versus patrol meetings in Vietnam. Peace time soldiering is not so much different. Hit rates are 10% for defender and 3% for attacker per hit. I cannot remember which army clocked those but those were force on force tests between two squads in a hardwood forest.

Oh, the only RPG with a decent combat system is Grunt by Zozer Games.

Quote from: Nikita;857651Statistically Australian army squad versus squad firefight in a thick covered terrain (jungles) has firing ranges at few meters and hit probability of 2% with average firefight being over in 2 minutes. All data from patrol versus patrol meetings in Vietnam. Peace time soldiering is not so much different. Hit rates are 10% for defender and 3% for attacker per hit. I cannot remember which army clocked those but those were force on force tests between two squads in a hardwood forest.

Oh, the only RPG with a decent combat system is Grunt by Zozer Games.

That's not a 100% apples-to-apples comparison. Most fire in a combat environment is suppressive.

Which is a nice way to say "Shooting over Yonder in the Hopes they won't stand up."

Police and civilian use of force statistics give numbers closer to 20% hit rate.

Quote from: Nikita;857651Statistically Australian army squad versus squad firefight in a thick covered terrain (jungles) has firing ranges at few meters and hit probability of 2% with average firefight being over in 2 minutes. All data from patrol versus patrol meetings in Vietnam. Peace time soldiering is not so much different. Hit rates are 10% for defender and 3% for attacker per hit. I cannot remember which army clocked those but those were force on force tests between two squads in a hardwood forest.

Oh, the only RPG with a decent combat system is Grunt by Zozer Games.

And this flies pretty well with others I've read about.

If it were routinely as high as 50%, then battles would be at an end -- a staggeringly costly one! -- in a minute or less.

There surely was great slaughter on the Western Front in WWI, with machineguns in emplacements strafing men struggling across a hundred yards of open ground whilst burdened with provisions and sundry implements (including such things as caged birds).

That's not a very appealing subject for a role-playing game, though.

Nobody wants to sit there waiting for their turn to roll the dice and miss. Or fail.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;857973Nobody wants to sit there waiting for their turn to roll the dice and miss. Or fail.

While people in general don't want to fail, without a chance to fail there isn't much reason to roll the dice. And non-stop success is boring. So in fact sometimes I do want to fail. Not in any particular round, but in some round(s).

Clearly, not everyone is a fan of Trenchfoot, the wargame of battles between squads during The Great War, where each soldier trying to move about in the mud has to roll not to fall down, and they often do. But there are players who do like that. I think it's a pretty fun game.

And, as I've mentioned before in other threads, I often find that players given an average simple character to start with, have more fun than the players allowed to start with high-level characters who have high and fancy skills.

Personally, I like games that try to be more or less realistic, so that they actually offer a chance to play something like the actual situation it purports to be about. Even if it's about extremely skilled people, I'd like the system to have a realistic foundation, so it's actually about that too, and not a case of "we're pretending it's about X, but the rules are like Y."

And then of course there are players who like games where they never fail anything, especially nothing mundane. Even GURPS has (in supplemental material) some optional rules for things like the "Truly Badass" advantage, which allows automatic successes including just taking out oridinary foes with no roll needed.

Again, there are many different types of tastes in games, about all sorts of things.

Quote from: jhkim;857339Some other options:

1) Roll 3d20 and keep the middle result - variance 20.1
2) Roll 3d6 - variance 8.75

Note that 1d20 has a variance of 33.25The first can also work for percentile systems - roll 3d100 and keep the middle result.

That's actually a great way to do that:)!
(And no, it's not Mutant Chronicles or anything. 3d20 take middle has been around for ages, used by people that believe 1d20 is an awful mechanic, probabillity-wise. The trick jhkim is doing is alternating it with 3d6, also a well-known mechanic, since it's got the same average number as 1d20, but 10 times lower odds to roll either extreme.
Personally, I'd add a 2d10 intermediate step, but that's me).

Quote from: Nikita;857651Statistically Australian army squad versus squad firefight in a thick covered terrain (jungles) has firing ranges at few meters and hit probability of 2% with average firefight being over in 2 minutes. All data from patrol versus patrol meetings in Vietnam. Peace time soldiering is not so much different. Hit rates are 10% for defender and 3% for attacker per hit. I cannot remember which army clocked those but those were force on force tests between two squads in a hardwood forest.

Oh, the only RPG with a decent combat system is Grunt by Zozer Games.

Quote from: JonWake;857656That's not a 100% apples-to-apples comparison. Most fire in a combat environment is suppressive.

Which is a nice way to say "Shooting over Yonder in the Hopes they won't stand up."

Police and civilian use of force statistics give numbers closer to 20% hit rate.

I don't think either of these contradicts each other. Although most people shooting in a city are untrained, there's way less cover and less distance in a street shooting than in a jungle;).

Necessary disclaimer, I know next to nothing about shootings, like most of you. But Grunts is great, indeed!
(I admit to liking the other Zozer-produced games as well).

Quote from: Skarg;857992And, as I've mentioned before in other threads, I often find that players given an average simple character to start with, have more fun than the players allowed to start with high-level characters who have high and fancy skills.

Been thinking about this lately by comparing many of my own characters.
Long story short, I agree.

QuotePersonally, I like games that try to be more or less realistic, so that they actually offer a chance to play something like the actual situation it purports to be about. Even if it's about extremely skilled people, I'd like the system to have a realistic foundation, so it's actually about that too, and not a case of "we're pretending it's about X, but the rules are like Y."

Exactly my feelings! A lot of people think that makes me a bad roleplayer or something, of course (and I think the same about them).

Thanks guys for this thread - it was very useful in helping me order my thoughts which resulted in some posts on my blog about when I want to roll dice, and what I'm rolling them for. I even changed my mind on some things!