The Gaming Den

I find it hilarious that instead of acknowledging my post, you just tacitl7y6 confirmed it.

Elennsar wrote:If you avoid being hit, then whether or not you'd soak is irrelevant. If you soak, whether or not you were hit somewhere vital is irrelevant. If you aren't hit somewhere vital, whether or not it was a grevious injury is irrelevant.

Or in reverse:

If you don't avoid being hit, then whether or not you'd soak is relevant. If you don't soak, whether or not you were hit somewhere vital is relevant. If you are hit somewhere vital, whether or not it was a grevious injury is relevant.

Unless that is all true, you don't make a vs. death roll.

this "objection" is only relevent to anything if you only interpret probabilistic statements to apply to single die rolls, whereas what we're trying to get is a probability encompassing the whole sequence

So if you are likely to roll one 3 in two hundred sixteen rolls, it is more likely that you will have the 3 in one of the other rolls, because you are making many more of them.

as you thought you needed to point out in a previous thread, failing other rolls doesn't make succeeding on a given roll anymore likely. So no, poor rolls are just as likely to happen on rolls that will kill you.

Also, as stated, we have hero points. If you don't have a hero point to cover something that only happens less than one time in two hundred, you've been spending them as if they were going out of style.

You should be able to survive with as close to absolute certainty as possible (I don't know how fast you'll spend them, I do know there will be times you'll be either out or nearly out), if that's the worst that can happen.
.

so in other words "X out of Y chance" doesn't really mean "X out of Y chance"

Also, you are also threatening the other guy. So even if your "luck is out", you might kill him before he rolls his threatening blow.

Or not.


The math is solid and dependable. The game situation is not.

So in other words, Giant Frog.

Edit: to sum up

1. When you say and "X out of Y chance" you don't really mean "X out of Y" but some other number which is less objectionable but you can't say what.
2. that poor rolls might only happen on checks that won't kill you.
3. GIANT FROG
4. that statements of probability can only describe single die rolls, and therefore every one asking for such is asking for combat to be resolved by a single roll, which is a stupid idea.

Elennsar wrote:Roy, if you have nothing productive to say, please stay out of this thread.

I'm tired of people insisting that because I don't agree that their math perfectly predicts exactly how combat that I'm totally blind to how math works.

Combat is math.

Therefore, you are saying math does not predict math. QED.

So norms, is that a 1 or a 3? Or perhaps a 4?

Roy wrote:

Elennsar wrote:Roy, if you have nothing productive to say, please stay out of this thread.

I'm tired of people insisting that because I don't agree that their math perfectly predicts exactly how combat that I'm totally blind to how math works.

Combat is math.

Therefore, you are saying math does not predict math. QED.

So norms, is that a 1 or a 3? Or perhaps a 4?

I'd say 3 mostly, a little 4.

Wow. We're seriously back to arguing about things that were explained to Elennsar a dozen times in a dozen different ways in that other thread.

You know, at this point, I don't think taking jabs at Elennsar is even worth it. It really doesn't matter whether he's being deliberately obtuse or if he's sincere in his incomprehension. Either way, communication has broken down. You can't have any kind of productive discussion if one side is speaking English and the other Swahili.

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:You can't have any kind of productive discussion if one side is speaking English and the other Swahili.

Translators can allow for very productive discussions. This is actually worse, because it's not that he doesn't understand the words, it's that he doesn't understand the concepts (iterative probability, etc.), and refuses to admit it and learn anything.

this "objection" is only relevent to anything if you only interpret probabilistic statements to apply to single die rolls, whereas what we're trying to get is a probability encompassing the whole sequence

It is relevant because it is ignoring that all of 1-3 have to happen for there to be any risk of a 3 on the final roll mattering. Every time you succeed on the first roll is a time the second never occurs.

as you thought you needed to point out in a previous thread, failing other rolls doesn't make succeeding on a given roll anymore likely. So no, poor rolls are just as likely to happen on rolls that will kill you.

If you will roll a 9 or less 38% (rounding up) of the time, it is more likely that nine will happen when rolling one of 1-3 than 4 alone.

so in other words "X out of Y chance" doesn't really mean "X out of Y chance"

No, in other words, X out of Y chance means X out of Y chance -ignoring such things-, because hero points -don't- care what the dice say.

Since you do have hero points and will presumably have one when you need one (but its impossible to tell), you might be able to make the X in Y chance into a "No problem" on a given roll - or you might not.

So in other words, Giant Frog.

No, in other words, you are ignoring the fact it is a complicated situation with many 3d6+modifiers rolls flying around, and not something you can precisely calculate out exactly how a given fight will work in advance.

Combat is math.

And decision making. Inconveniently for your nice math, some of those decisions shift the situation from the model.

Wow. We're seriously back to arguing about things that were explained to Elennsar a dozen times in a dozen different ways in that other thread.

Because people are determined to insist that their math perfectly models the situation and are ignoring any idea that it is very nice math and very irrelevant unless things go as predicted in terms of actions and reactions.

This is actually worse, because it's not that he doesn't understand the words, it's that he doesn't understand the concepts (iterative probability, etc.), and refuses to admit it and learn anything.

What I don't understand is why you assume that the combat will have 5 attacks by each of 5 opponents with a 1/4 chance of you being targeted and blah blah blah and be totally predictable so that you can just plug in "odds of a (number)" and your odds will not only be relevant, but you can predict when that 3 (or 18 ) or whatever will occur.

Not that it will occur a given number of times in a given number of rolls. When it will be rolled.

Apparently, its impossible to agree that a 3 occurs one time in two hundred and sixteen tries and disagree that it will occur when you are guessing it will.

It's 3 in the moringing right now, so I'm going to have to come back later to smite you properly. Right now, I'd just like for you to acknowedge that, while hero points, and player choice, and increased design complexity make can affect the math, they don't make the math go away.

IGTN wrote:Translators can allow for very productive discussions. This is actually worse, because it's not that he doesn't understand the words, it's that he doesn't understand the concepts (iterative probability, etc.), and refuses to admit it and learn anything.

Thats mean, PR will be here soon to defend E's right to talk crap.

Draco_Argentum wrote:

IGTN wrote:Translators can allow for very productive discussions. This is actually worse, because it's not that he doesn't understand the words, it's that he doesn't understand the concepts (iterative probability, etc.), and refuses to admit it and learn anything.

Thats mean, PR will be here soon to defend E's right to talk crap.

And then I'll come in and laugh again, right?

You guys are fucking predictable as hell. And by 'you guys' I mean 'people here, including myself'. Alternately it's because we've rode this Deja Vu endless loop before.

Right now, I'd just like for you to acknowedge that, while hero points, and player choice, and increased design complexity make can affect the math, they don't make the math go away.

I don't deny that a 1/216 roll will, given enough rolls, happen 0.5% or so of the time. I do argue that it won't necessarily happen on the final roll because there's not necessarily a final roll to have and many more rolls where it is likely that any given number will occur.

You could roll a 3 on your first roll and not roll another one for another 430 (rolling it on your 432nd) rolls. Or you could roll a 3 on your 216th roll and then another on your 217th roll.

Or anything like that.

The math is a lovely prediction of the number of 3s rolled over the course of a sufficiently large number of rolls, it is an imperfect prediction of the occasions of those 3s.

A subset of all rolls works just as well as the complete set, provided that the subset has nothing to do with the number rolled.

You are as likely to roll a 3 out of N attack rolls as you are out of N saving throws as you are out of N appraise checks as you are out of N "dice tests," as you are out of N total rolls.

If a 3 in a certain circumstance kills you, and that circumstance occurs N times over the course of the campaign, then your chance of dying of that cause alone is 1-(215/216)^N. Intervening rolls mean nothing.

If you get pressed to make that roll an average of once per two battles (say, twice in one battle, once in another, and not at all for three of them), and you have three hero points that you can spend to negate them, and you fight 20 battles, your chance of death is 4% (ignoring other possible causes of death). It is literally impossible to escape the math while still using a random number generator or any kind.

I don't deny that a 1/216 roll will, given enough rolls, happen 0.5% or so of the time. I do argue that it won't necessarily happen on the final roll

Can you please point me to a quote where someone said this?

ou are as likely to roll a 3 out of N attack rolls as you are out of N saving throws as you are out of N appraise checks as you are out of N "dice tests," as you are out of N total rolls.

And if you make many more attack rolls (for instance), you are more likely to have the 3s you will roll at some point in your rolling be there.

Can you please point me to a quote where someone said this?

What I want to see is someone pointing out why the intervening rolls, which make it less likely you'll have -any- roll vs. death, are irrelevant.

If you have forty rolls vs. death, then whether or not you rolled 9,001 other rolls doesn't matter - but the fact you have to fail some intervening rolls to have any rolls vs. death does.

IGTN wrote:Translators can allow for very productive discussions. This is actually worse, because it's not that he doesn't understand the words, it's that he doesn't understand the concepts (iterative probability, etc.), and refuses to admit it and learn anything.

Indeed. The best bet is probably for him to continue to work on his fantastic new system. As he continues to fail to achieve his stated objectives, he may come to understand what we have been saying. Already, we see that he has come to accept "Hero Points" for player characters that can be spent to negate injuries, despite earlier saying that:

Elennsar wrote:So fuck plot armor. Plot armor makes as big a joke out of the idea of "actually being heroic" as any other method of "cannot be meaningfully hurt".

I don't mind hero points protecting PCs...but they provide just as much protection when equally important NPCs spend them.

I mind PCs being protected by "PCs are the special ones".

Learn to tell the difference between minding "PCs are fucking invulnerable because they're PCs and we can't let them die" and minding PCs being too easily slain simply by the dice.

Elennsar wrote:And if you make many more attack rolls (for instance), you are more likely to have the 3s you will roll at some point in your rolling be there.

If you roll 8,000,000,000 Appraise checks and 2,160 attack rolls, you will get approximately 37,000,000 3s on Appraise checks, and 10 3s on attack rolls. If you roll no Appraise checks and 2,160 attack rolls, you will still get about 10 3s on attack rolls. If you roll 4,320 attack rolls and eight trillion Appraise checks, you can expect 20 3s on your attack rolls, and 37 million on your appraise checks.

Rolls are not a deck of cards, where rolling a 3 on an appraise check means that you're less likely to roll one somewhere else (although drawing through a deck of cards is as likely to draw the good cards out as the bad). When you pick up the dice to roll your save vs death, you have a 1-in-216 chance of dying (assuming you merely need better than a 3), regardless of what those dice have done before, if they're fair dice.

but the fact you have to fail some intervening rolls to have any rolls vs. death does.

Alright, that can be worked into the probability too.

Let's say that, in a battle, you are attacked 10 times. Each attack has a 50% chance of hitting, each hit has a 10% chance of hitting a vital spot, and you have a 10% chance of dying of a vital hit (not necessarily immediately; this 10% can be multiple rolls. Small probabilities are close enough to linear that you might have, for instance, a 1-in-20 chance of dying immediately and a 1-in-10 chance of getting an infection that has a 50% chance of killing you if you survive, and be close to 10% for dying of that blow).

Each attack, then, has a 50% * 10% * 10% chance of killing you, for a total of 0.5%. That's a 99.5% chance of surviving each attack, times 10 attacks is just short of a 5% chance of death.

I'm not modeling exhaustion or cumulative effects of getting hit because that will make the math more complicated. Not impossible, just that I'd have to iterate through each attack, but without it it's just an exponent.

Needing to fail several intervening rolls to get to a roll vs death doesn't get you away from the math, it just adds more layers of math. You pretty much need to get away from a random number generator if you don't want your game to be mathematically describable, and at that point you have no "risk" of death.

Rolls are not a deck of cards, where rolling a 3 on an appraise check means that you're less likely to roll one somewhere else...

Rolling a 3 on one roll means you're less likely to roll it on the next roll. Or rather, you're less likely to roll a 3 on both of any two rolls in a row.

I'm not modeling exhaustion or cumulative effects of getting hit because that will make the math more complicated. Not impossible, just that I'd have to iterate through each attack, but without it it's just an exponent.

Then your math is failing to represent the actual situation.

Needing to fail several intervening rolls to get to a roll vs death doesn't get you away from the math, it just adds more layers of math.

No, but it means that there are several things that need to happen before your X in Y chance of blowing any given roll gets to the potentially final/fatal roll.

If you have a 50% chance of failing each roll, your odds of failing both of your rolls (hit location is chosen or rolled by the other guy) are said to be now 25%.

My problem is that all your math may work beautifully if things go as predicted - but if, for instance, your opponent has a 0% chance of hitting a vital spot, the math has to be run all over again.

Since whether or not he aims for something vital is up to him (and not something you have any real control over), you risk the possibility in any given hit that it will be aimed at say, your head.

That is good. Having a 50% chance of a 10% chance of a etc. - not so good.

Elennsar wrote:Rolling a 3 on one roll means you're less likely to roll it on the next roll.

Absolutely not. Rolling a 3 on one roll has no effect on any subsequent rolls.

Elennsar wrote: Or rather, you're less likely to roll a 3 on both of any two rolls in a row.

No. Taking a random set of two rolls and having them both be 3s is less likely than taking a random set of two rolls and having one of them be a three.

But once you've rolled a 3, your chance of rolling a 3 on the next roll is exactly the same as if you'd just rolled a 12 or a 17. It's a new roll, and the previous roll doesn't mean shit. If you look at all the 3s and check how many of them are immediately followed by another 3, a fair die should give that result as 1 in 216 - exactly the same as any other arbitrary set of die rolls would have.

-Username17

Then what the hell is your point about iterative probability making rolling over or under or at whatever unlikely?

Either it doesn't matter what your rolled before or it does.

Elennsar wrote:

Rolls are not a deck of cards, where rolling a 3 on an appraise check means that you're less likely to roll one somewhere else...

Rolling a 3 on one roll means you're less likely to roll it on the next roll. Or rather, you're less likely to roll a 3 on both of any two rolls in a row.

No, it doesn't.

I'm not modeling exhaustion or cumulative effects of getting hit because that will make the math more complicated. Not impossible, just that I'd have to iterate through each attack, but without it it's just an exponent.

Then your math is failing to represent the actual situation.

No, it isn't. You are failing to properly define the situation. For example, are you assuming that there are parts of your character's body that can be hit with no chance of dying as a result? How much harder is it to hit the head as opposed to anywhere else?

Come up with some concrete numbers that sound right to you for every roll that needs to be made between "The barbarian attacks you!" and "Ack! I'm dead!"

Elennsar wrote:Then what the hell is your point about iterative probability making rolling over or under or at whatever unlikely?

Either it doesn't matter what your rolled before or it does.

What the fucking fuck fuck?!

Seriously man, what the hell? It's really obvious that you don't understand probability at all, so how about we come to a full stop. And then you explain what the fucking hell you do understand.

-Username17

Then your math is failing to represent the actual situation.

Of course it is. It's a simplification, and the actual situation hasn't even been defined yet. The point, though, is that "you need to fail some of the intervening rolls to even need to attempt a save vs death" just sticks another layer of math on; it doesn't make the math go away. As long as there's a random number generator, there's math. It might be complicated math, but its still there.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Elennsar wrote:Then what the hell is your point about iterative probability making rolling over or under or at whatever unlikely?

Either it doesn't matter what your rolled before or it does.

What the fucking fuck fuck?!

Seriously man, what the hell? It's really obvious that you don't understand probability at all, so how about we come to a full stop. And then you explain what the fucking hell you do understand.

-Username17

He understands Giant Frog. And that's about it.

No, it isn't. You are failing to properly define the situation. For example, are you assuming that there are parts of your character's body that can be hit with no chance of dying as a result? How much harder is it to hit the head as opposed to anywhere else?

Come up with some concrete numbers that sound right to you for every roll that needs to be made between "The barbarian attacks you!" and "Ack! I'm dead!"

You are assuming that you can predict exactly how a combat situation goes if I give you that information.

If that combat situation in play actually went as used in the math, the math would (assuming fair dice) apply. Somehow, I doubt that most combat situations will go exactly predictably in that regard.

Seriously man, what the hell? It's really obvious that you don't understand probability at all, so how about we come to a full stop. And then you explain what the fucking hell you do understand.

That none of this is accomplishing anything generating statistics.

No, I'm serious. If you have a 50% chance of failing an encounter, according to you earlier, you have a 25% chance of winning both of two encounters - but assuming therefore that having a 50% chance of not failing a given roll means a 50% chance of not -making- the second roll just yet does not apply. Or something.

Of course it is. It's a simplification, and the actual situation hasn't even been defined yet. The point, though, is that "you need to fail some of the intervening rolls to even need to attempt a save vs death" just sticks another layer of math on; it doesn't make the math go away. As long as there's a random number generator, there's math. It might be complicated math, but its still there.

No one said the math is going away. What is going away is a nice predictable encounter where you have a 30% chance of dying (picking 30 for no particular reason) - a 30% chance if certain actions are taken, yes, but something less than a 100% chance of those exact actions being taken.

Elennsar wrote:No, I'm serious. If you have a 50% chance of failing an encounter, according to you earlier, you have a 25% chance of winning both of two encounters - but assuming therefore that having a 50% chance of not failing a given roll means a 50% chance of not -making- the second roll just yet does not apply. Or something.

Iterative probability only applies when all of the events you're iterating through are unknown. We went over this last thread. Once you know one of them, the probability changes.

Let's say you plan to flip a coin twice. Your odds of getting both heads re 25%, 50% for the first flip * 50% for the second flip.

Once you flip it once, however, your odds change. If you got a tails, you now have a 0% chance of getting both heads. If you flipped heads, you now have a 50% chance of getting both heads. This is because the first flip becomes known, not probabilistic.

Seriously, do what Frank asked. Explain what you do know about probability, so that we can build up from there.

No one said the math is going away. What is going away is a nice predictable encounter where you have a 30% chance of dying (picking 30 for no particular reason) - a 30% chance if certain actions are taken, yes, but something less than a 100% chance of those exact actions being taken.

First, you moved the goalposts from your last post; you were talking about how some intervening rolls had to be failed then, and now you're talking about tactics.

Regardless, tactics just move the math back a layer.

If you take a course of action that makes an exploitable mistake in N% of battles (you can't easily get theory on this, but you can do empirical measurements of how often people play in a given way. Chess has no random elements, but you can't perfectly predict the winner between two people of similar skill), and your mistake is exploited M% of the time, and has an L% chance of killing you, then you have a chance equal to N/100 * M/100 * L/100 of dying in battle.

Tactics are still predictable. Also, if the emergence of the system is complex enough, a mistake in one situation may be a good move in another, and vice versa.

Also, good luck designing such a system, with a large number of possible mistakes and counters to make. Systems like that typically devolve into a case with a huge variety of useless tactics and a few good moves. Just look at, for example, D&D (3 or 4, it doesn't really matter. There are a few build types that work, and everything else is details). Go is an exception, not the rule; if you just write down some rules, you're more likely to get something that has a few killer moves and a bunch of bad ones than you are to produce Go or something like it.

Elennsar wrote:Then what the hell is your point about iterative probability making rolling over or under or at whatever unlikely?

Either it doesn't matter what your rolled before or it does.

It doesn't matter to this roll what the previous roll was.

Iterative probability deals with sets of rolls.

Good lord, man. Read a prob-stat book or take a class. Either way,