Sources of Fortune: In defense of the unopposed roll

[Andrew Martin]

In conclusion: I think people DO estimate their chances, but there are two other factors : 1)most tests aren't pass/fail in RL, usually it's the output quality measured against something to determinet success/failure.  2)The probablities aren't as obvious  as they are in a RPG.

I agree. I feel for the most part, that people that think about a task weigh the odds in their minds first of all, and get an emotional response, like confidence equalling >90% certainity of immediate success, while uncertainity meaning like maybe or around 50/50 or 50%, and a fear-like response means near zero chance of success. Ineffective and defeatist people tend to magnify the odds against them, while over-confident people tend to minimise or ignore the odss against them, and effective people work at minimising the odds against them and maximise the odds for them.

[JMendes]

Heya, :)

Myth #4: Role-playing games are best served by modeling reality at every turn.

Please endeavor to explain myth #4 to a Simulationist without insulting him.

That may be hard.  First of all, what kind of Simulationist are you?  Second, how thin-skinned are you?

Agh. I didn't necessarily mean me, though I can easily see how I could have caused that impression. To answer your questions, I am fairly into consistency and modeling for modeling's sake and I do not mind complexity. I like exploring system and I think rule discussion is a part of playing. But that's just me. I'm also fairly thick-skinned. Plus, I am prone to glaring errors of argument, such as abusing the term 'myth'.

The biggest cannon brought to bear on this situation is the difference between realism and verisimilitude.

Er... Yes, I was talking about modeling and internal consistency. I don't think 'This game has magic so it can't be realistic' is a legitimate argument when we are talking about simulating a dude jumping over the proverbial chasm.

And on the point of simulation, <...> the point needs to be made about how much of this the people playing the game will even notice.

IMHO, this is a factor exclusively of how much people want to notice it.

Myth #1: Opposed die rolls have no more information than unopposed ones.[/list:u]That one is actually true.

They're just dice, the numbers could mean anything.

Yes, they are just dice. But the fact alone that there are more dice means that there is more information. Sure, you can abstract all the information away, and that's what one usually does. But, at least according to Information Theory, there is indeed more information.

Myth #2: Opposed rolls should be less predictable than unopposed ones.[/list:u]This depends largely on two things.  What you mean by predictable and how important it is to be able to predict the outcome of a game mechanic.  

Mike Holmes makes a really succinct statement

What do I mean by predictable? Exactly the same thing as Mike does. Only, he says it's counterintuitive, while I think it is rather highly intuitive. Also, predictable does not refer to how easy it is for a particular player to estimate the outcome, but rather how center-heavy the distribution is or should be. Thusly, your second factor is a bit off my point.

Myth #3: If you must have opposed rolls, everything should be abstracted to an opposed roll.[/list:u]This gets at the heart of

Mike's Rant

It does, doesn't it? ;)

I echo his commentary on sticking to one or the other.

My whole point was precisely that there are valid reasons for including both.

The point demonstrated by your examples is that it will be quite hard to create a system that has both opposed and unopposed mechanics that appear the same.

Why?

Have two separate resolution mechanics and people will ask why.  Try to make one look like a mere feature of the other and you sacrifice that realism or verisimilitude or Simulationism or whatever else was at stake here.

Again, I don't follow.

not so much a myth as bias on your part <...>But when you pose them as myths, you tickle the Devil's Advocate in me.

Well, not necessarily on my part, but yes, the term myth was abused  by me. In my defense, I wasn't the first to do so, and I was also being a sort of devil's advocate in that I was defending a point of view that directly opposes another that seemed to be gaining in popularity... :)

This posting is, in fact, my opinion.

Indeed. As was mine. And as is this one.

The point is not about whether one is better than the other. The point is about combining the two methods in one game system.

Yes, my point was exactly that there may be valid reasons for combining them.

What happens is that the skill target numbers and the fighting/conflict target numbers are operating, in terms of success, on two totally different probability scales. That's in and of itself inelegant, at the very least

Frankly, I don't see why this is inelegant, and I don't even see why this is a problem.

the real trouble shows up when the "pips" of the target numbers are "bought" using points of equal value, which is the most widespread method of character creation in games that do this in the first place.

Ah, yes. Balancing char-gen is a real issue.

This leads to breakpoint problems.

I am unfamiliar with this expression.

There's no point in discussing the differences between opposed vs. unopposed in terms of unique virtues.

Agreed.

Interestingly, I say nothing in my rant (to which I refer people, and to which I, perhaps arrogantly, assume this post is aimed)

Not necessarly aimed, but indeed, referring to.

I have my own opinions on those subjects brought up as myth

Yes, my usage of the word was rather imbecile. I would like to take the opportunity to appologize to you.

My objection is that people put separate mechanics for these situations just because other systems do. Without any consideration of potential effects.

Indeed, people do lots of stuff just because. Btw, I did like your post. But, I felt that the other side was not being properly advocated and I stepped up to the plate, so to speak.

This is essentially what Mr. Mendes must be saying

Incidentaly, my first name is Joao. :)

What he must be saying is that one should only roll for those things that "seem" random, or are random enough that they would have a discernable effect. Such that players will feel that the dice being rolled are having an effect on the game that somehow feels like how daily reality affects them.

That is indeed what my point was.

My point regarding this is that players should ignore the mechanics, and just focus on the outcome.

Unless, of course, one is interested in exploring the mechanics and how well they model (a/the) physical world.

(see TROS for a counter example of where the dice really go beyond simple modeling)

Again, I am unfamiliar with this term.

I've never heard of a player playing Sorcerer say, "You know, it seems weird that you're rolling dice for the lock". In fact, they don't think that this is happening at all.

Just thought I'd mention that I am a great supporter of the opposed roll for everything, especially as concealed behind the screen, as a means to 'kepp the players guessing', so to speak. I think it can be an excellent narrative aid. (I can expand on this in another thread, if anyone cares.) But I was, in fact, defending something else entirely.

In any case, if you are designing a game and your specific goal is to appeal to people who you feel would prefer this sort of dichotomy, and prefer it despite the greater complexity, then great. You have given it at least due consideration. Which is all I ask for. In fact, even better reasons have been given why multiple resolution systems have been included in some games. And to that extent, I support such decisions.

Coolness. However, this view was not well expressed in your previous post.

Anyway, again, I would like to make amends for my improper usage of the word 'myth', as well as for any ill feelings this thread or my original post may have sparked. (And also, for posting over 100 lines... yuck...)

Cheers,

J.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Joao (cool name!),

I think this is an excellent, interesting thread, so there's no need for apologies. The "myth" thing doesn't bug me at all.

On the slight downside, I'm not going to do well (personally, not as a moderator) with line-by-line parsing of responses. You know, where you quote a sentence, then respond to it, then quote another sentence, and respond to that ... my experience is that such a method often creates a barrier to understanding one another's points, in a discussion. In the Forge guidelines, we ask that people keep it to a minimum, although it's not outlawed or anything. My point here is to say that I, myself, am going to have a hard time responding to such posts.

The issue seems to come down to why and how I think an opposed-unopposed combination of dice systems tends to decrease a game's "function" (for lack of a better word), and to compare why and how you see the combination either as adequate or even desirable.

Is that where we are?

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Coolness. However, this view was not well expressed in your previous post.

I tried hard. Every time I said that I prefered to do "opposed only" and gave my reasons was not to say that this was the only way to go, but to show how one can reason through the process. Instead of just accepting the "myth" (I'm not sure what the problem is with that term, but I didn't have a problem with either of our uses), or preconception that this is a good way to go without looking at the potential damage that one can do to their game by adopting such mechanics de riguer.

BTW, TROS is "The Riddle of Steel" a game that takes dice modeling and ewxploration of system to great heights of effect. I think you'd like it. Check it out in the Indie pages.

Breakpoint problems is a phrase that refers to the idea that a char-gen system may have certain advantageous ways to expend player resources so as to create more effective characters. As a classic example, in Champions it makes little sense to take a dex of 24. For a savings of three points I can take a 23 and the only think I lose is initiative in the case of a character with 24 Dex. Wheras going from 22 to 23 I not only gain the initiative bonus, but also a +1 on my attacks, and +1 on any Dex based skill roll.

The point is that this makes players all take Dex 23 (or 8 for slow bricks, or 14 for the fast brick). Which is limiting.

What Ron refers to is similar sorts of problems that can occur with having multiple systems. For example, if I had a system which was "unopposed" roll d10 + skill to beat target, and an "opposed" version which is d10 + skill to beat opponent's d10 + skill, then I have a situation in which skill is less effective in the opposed case than in the unopposed case. Because in the one case you are rolling more dice (Walt and I discussed this, and whether or not this is true s an ancillary issue; somebody might want one side to not balance in which case they are right to use this method).

In any case, if a system does make one sort of skill more useful (say those like lockpicking used in "unopposed" situations), then players may tend to unnaturally gravitate to taking those skills.

As always, the point is not that one has to go one way or another, but that the designer must consider these effects, and understand that they may not be getting what they think they are by adopting an "opposed/unopposed" dichotomy. People often adopt such mechanisms because they assume that they work without problem in other games that use them, when, in point of fact, they don't usually. And that the "all opposed" or "all unopposed" systems are viable alternatives that fix a lot of these problems (while in addition being simpler).

Mike

[JMendes]

Ahey, :)

The issue seems to come down to why and how I think an opposed-unopposed combination of dice systems tends to decrease a game's "function" (for lack of a better word), and to compare why and how you see the combination either as adequate or even desirable.

This is an accurate assession of the point of contention. :)

To Mike: I think we are seeing eye-to-eye, in that, one shouldn't choose the double system (or any other feature/mechanic/whatever) just because.

Also, the breakpoint issue is either a very real one or a moot point, depending on the char-gen/char-dev mechanics. On this subject, allow me to point out that many (most? no, but many) significant skills are going to be used opposed anyway. For instance, a classic medieval fighter would be ill advised to not focus on fighting skills because they are opposed whereas unopposed skills tend to do better.

(It should go without saying that there should not be both an unopposed mellee skill and an opposed mellee skill. That would be seriously broken. That said, I think mellee should be opposed and firearms should be unopposed, unless special circumstances dictate otherwise.)

Let me add an interesting point here: virtually every dual-handling system I've ever seen has a thoroughly inconsistent handling of other characters aiding you. To wit, if we are rolling opposed dice because of the additional source of fortune, then other characters aiding should also add additional rolls of dice, not some arbitrary modifier.

Anyways, I hope this adds something to the discussion.

Cheers,

J.

[Mike Holmes]

Let me add an interesting point here: virtually every dual-handling system I've ever seen has a thoroughly inconsistent handling of other characters aiding you. To wit, if we are rolling opposed dice because of the additional source of fortune, then other characters aiding should also add additional rolls of dice, not some arbitrary modifier.

That's a perfect example of a breakpoint issue. Where effectiveness is modified unintentionally through poor application of the mechanics. One of my arguments has always been that the advantage of an "All opposed" or "all unopposed" system is that you usually don't have to worry about problems like this. You can rest at ease that the system is working as you intended. Wheras with the dual system you have to then consider what method you have to use to ensure that you aren't creating these sorts of problems.

Call it laziness, it's easier to design this way.

I like rollover mechanics for dice pools. Where successes from one roll become dice in the next roll. So if I help Bob, the successes I get on my help roll are dice added to Bob's poll (or subtracted in the case of failures; oops I interfered with Bob's roll). With a single system this is easy to just throw in and have it remain consistent. With a dual system the effects could vary wildly. I'd rather not even have to think of it. And I don't because I know the simpler method works.

Just an example.

Mike