A while back Jake said he was going to put up all the house rules that have been developed on this list, I am really looking forward to this. If need be people can send me the house rules: sgalthoff@icqmail.com and I will put them in a nice format so Jake and easily put them on the web page. Here is the house rules I have so far:

Rapier Damage (various people):
St + 2 or St + 1

Suggested Katana Stats (Jake Norwood):
Cut
ATN 5
ST + 2 damage, -2 vs. metal armors
Thrust
ATN 7
ST dam, or maybe ST +1
DTN 7
Cut (0)
Thrust (1?)
Counter (2 or 3?)
Iai (a quick-draw maneuver that I wrote for TFOB)
and maybe a few others.

Flails:
Were any house rules suggested?

Danish Broadaxe (kviksverd):
2H, long
ATN: 6 ( or 7 (Jake) )
DTN: 9
Damage: ST+3c
Notes: as for Hand Axe

Parrying a bare hand attack with a weapon (Valamir):
If you succeed in the parry by more than 0 you do damage equal to Difference in Successes + St + Weapon's damage modifier

Parrying a weapon with bare hands (Wolfen):
I'd say that if you successfully parry a cut with your hand, that you apply damage from the weapon + the attacker's successes, minus your cumulative successes from the defense. Like so:
Tiberius swings on Julianos with his shortsword. Julianos is currently unarmed because he's a yutz, but he attempts to block with his hand to keep from getting his head severed. Tiberius rolls 4 successes, and Julianos rolls 5, which makes a successful parry. However, Julianos blocked a bladed weapon with his hand... So we take the damage of the weapon (ST, in this case, 5) and add 4 successes, for a total of 9 damage. Now subtract Julianos TO (a 6, if I remember correctly) and his 1 cumulative success (5-4=1) which leaves a remaining damage level of two, to the hand.
If it is blocking a thrust from a bladed weapon, use only the damage of the weapon as knocking aside a thrusting blade is much easier than a cut. Like so:
Tiberius is now attacking the newly rejuvenated Julianos with a thrust from his short sword. Again Tiberius rolls 4 successes, and Julianos, lucky bastard that he is, rolls 5 again. Julianos has successfully parried the thrust with his bare hand, but is at risk of getting a nasty cut. The damage of the weapon is again ST, so we take the total damage (5) and minus TO+ the cumulative successes, once again 1. Julianos has parried the blade without injuring his hand.
Add in an arming glove, and you can add the armor rating (3) to your damage resistance, meaning that blocking a cut from most things less than a greatsword or such will be fairly effective.

Send me any other house rules I missed, also any house rule I have please tell me if you disagree with it and I will try to put on the page multiple interpretations.

Rapiers also suffer from a damage penalty against plate armor (and perhaps chainmail)--say, -3.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Rapiers also suffer from a damage penalty against plate armor (and perhaps chainmail)--say, -3.

Jake

Thirsty Viking wrote:

Jake Norwood wrote: Rapiers also suffer from a damage penalty against plate armor (and perhaps chainmail)--say, -3.

Jake

This coulds be argued, but i'd say that rapiers should only be -1 dam if that against chain in a thrusting attack (i am assuming this is in addition to the chain AV). They would only have to break one or two links and they'd go right in to the person... just as an arrow would. unlike plate they have a little hole to catch the point, decreasing the chance of them glancing off.

I'm not terribly fond of the way that dice pool games handle fumbles, so here's a rule I'm using in my game:

You only fumble on a failed roll if your produce more ones on the dice than any other single number. That is, a roll of 1, 1, 4, 4, 5 with a TN of 6 is not a fumble.

A roll of 1, 1, 3, 4, 5 against a TN of 6 is a fumble.


--
Viktor

I like that 10s can be stacked when rolling to produce high values.

But what if you have a TN of 10 or less, and you roll 10s?

I'm wondering whether you can make rolled 10s slightly more flexible: any 10 rolled can *either* stack, *or* can be used as a separate die (producing an added success).

I haven't tried this out yet, but it occurs to me that it might have merit.


--
Viktor

viktor_haag wrote:
I'm wondering whether you can make rolled 10s slightly more flexible: any 10 rolled can *either* stack, *or* can be used as a separate die (producing an added success).

I haven't tried this out yet, but it occurs to me that it might have merit.

I don't know about changing the fumble rules. I don't have that probability calculator that I made up for TRoS with me, but I don't remember seeing the odds for a fumble ever being very high (i.e. rarely more than 1% and I don't think ever higher than 2% and this looked at pools of up to 20 dice and TNs from 2 up to 20). I'll have to look into that later.

I don't think he's trying to reduce the chances of a fumble on the whole, but rather to mitigate that effect that I spoke of at one point where, in some few cases, having more dice actually makes fumbling more likely.

But you're right, even with my version of his modification, fumbles go from rare to vanishingly rare.

Mike

I got a quick chance to check my chart and the largest chance of fumbling would be with (of course) a TN of 20 and rolling 18 dice, which would put you odds at about 23.7%. Here's a little table to demonstrate afew other, more common, TNs:

[code]TN # Dice Odds of a Fumble Odds of Rolling at Least 1 Success
6 2, 3, 4 0.3% 75.0%, 87.5%, 93.8%
7 3, 4, 5 0.6% 78.4%, 87.0%, 92.2%
8 4, 5, 6 1.2% 76.0%, 83.2%, 88.2%
9 6, 7 2.6% 73.8%, 79.0%
10 7 5.9% 52.2% [/code]
This doesn't mean I don't agree with what you're saying, Mike. I just wanted to straighten out some erroneous numbers from my last post first before I go on.

As far as the odds of a fumble going up, the number of dice given for each TN represents the highest odds for rolling a pair of 1s with no successes. The odds do go up in certain circumstances, but only to a point and the rate of increase, as well as decrease is very small. I'm not sure whether it was on this forum or in the Core Book that there was an explaintion of this; something about the number of dice represents the amount of effort being used and that if a failure did occurs with a greater effort, a fumble should be more likely (which mathematically really isn't the case here either, at least not always).

Very interesting topic though, please don't let me ruin the fun.

I really don't see the problem with the fumble rules..... Could we get an example laid out that is causing the concern....

If it is combat i see the most likely fumble being when someone does something with only 2-3 dice and rolls 2 ones... OTHERWISE thier Chance of at least 1 success is huge.

If it is a skill check then you must be applying to high a negative result from the fumble... the worst i can think of is a stealth fumble, you make noise/action that WILL draw attention unless the PER roll also fumbled.... so i must ask.. Where is the problem coming from?
Oddly enough, someone only rolling one Die never fumbles in our current rules.... but then again they succeed less too.

Thirsty Viking wrote: Oddly enough, someone only rolling one Die never fumbles in our current rules.... but then again they succeed less too.

TV,

To clarify what I and Durgil are saying, given certain TNs, the actual total chance of rolling a fumble increases. Very few cases, but they exist. That's after considering the chance to fail as well. Also, it means that in all cases, a larger fraction of failures are fumbles the more dice you roll, in all cases.

For real.

We're not worried about what the effect of a fumble is. Just that the particular chosen mechanic has this strange feature. I suggestedonce that to make the effort thing seem more true that a player should be allowed to roll as many dice as they want to represent that success, but that they should be further penalized in terms of potential fumbles. Representing them extending themselves beyond the level of effort that they can control.

In truth, since you get CP for skill, and for tactical modifiers. We can see that the dice only partially represent effort in truth. I myself have argued that they must indicate a significant effort, as the best blows all employ significant effort. But there is a limit to this. Too wild a swing would in fact reduce your chances to do significant damage.

So to really simulate all this would require something else. It could be developed if people were really interested.

That all said, the "problem" only shows itself in a small part of the scale, and given that fumbles are uncommon anyhow, it really hardly makes a difference (we're talking about a percent or two at most in the odd circumstance). So, it's probably not all that important.

Still, it's fun to figure out ways to try to mitigate the effect. The one proposed here by me would reduce the number of fumbles significantly which I think is a bad thing. I'd like to see more fumbles. What it does do, however is eliminate that little bump on the curve, and make the "fraction of success" problem disapear.

Mike

Durgil wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote: Oddly enough, someone only rolling one Die never fumbles in our current rules.... but then again they succeed less too.

A rule stating that you must use at least 2 dice to perform any maneuver could easily take care of this proble. As a GM, I feel there should always be the chance of a failure; that's why you should never have a TN of 1 either no matter the ease of the task.

Durgil wrote:
As far as a problem, I think that it is the concern of some mathematically minded people, on this forum, to be concerned that the seemingly benefical act of awarding more dice can in actuality increase your odds of fumbling.

Given that you never fumble if you have even 1 success, i don't see this except in TN above 11. And it should be easier to fumble on a near impossible task when you put lots of effort into it.

In our game dice = effort.... if they don't want extra dice, for a greator chance of success... let them limit themselves. The harder you try, the more likey you are to have negative side effect IFF you fail. but then again, you're also less likely to fail.

So in one way they are right, if you roll 16 dice to hit something with a sword... TN 5. then Almost any failure will be a fumble. But one can argue that your so bloody good it Requires a fumble for you to fail when trying that hard. chance of Failure is lees than 2 in 100,000.

here is a table at TN 7 Dice on the left
formula for success is =1-(((TN-1)/10)^#DICE)
TN-1 is the number of failures per die / 10 gives % to fail on each die ^ by the number of dice is the probablity of failing on EVERY die




[code]
D % success % Failure Fumble %
2 64.0% 36.0% 1%
3 78.4% 21.6%
4 87.0% 13.0%
5 92.2% 7.8%
6 95.3% 4.7%
7 97.2% 2.8%
8 98.3% 1.7%
9 99.0% 1.0%
10 99.4% 0.6%
11 99.6% 0.4%
12 99.8% 0.2%
[/code]

Obviously the % of fumbles can never be greator than the % failures I'll edit this as soon as i work out the polynomial distribution formula for rolling 2+ 1's without a success I'll repost the charts then

Ok I think i worked out the math, thank god for spreadsheets, i had to brute force the effects of adding one more die to the die pool, I think it is fianally correct.

TN 10 (also TN 11 has same % in RoS) gives me
[code]
d10 % success %failure % fumble
01 10.000% 90.000% 00.000%
02 19.000% 81.000% 01.000%
03 27.100% 72.900% 02.700%
04 34.390% 65.610% 04.490%
05 40.951% 59.049% 06.185%
06 46.856% 53.144% 07.679%
07 52.170% 47.830% 08.918%
08 56.953% 43.047% 09.886%
09 61.258% 38.742% 10.588%
10 65.132% 34.868% 11.044%
11 68.619% 31.381% 11.282%
12 71.757% 28.243% 11.332%
13 74.581% 25.419% 11.224%
14 77.123% 22.877% 10.988%
15 79.411% 20.589% 10.652%
[/code]
At TN of 10 you are correct <13 dice increases your % chance of fumble I'm not worried about this because this would be non-combat. Or trying to parry with a weapon clearly unsuitable for the purpose such as a mace in one hand... you might reasonably lose it 12% of the time on a strong desperate parry. A good reason for a Mace wielder to use 2 hands, or to block with a shield instead.

@ TN 9 fumble drops substancially and is alway less than 5% (1 in 20 from D&D) any player not wanting to risk being disarmed by his opponent should restrict his dice.... combat is risky.... choose your risks.. more likely to be skewered.... more likely to drop your weapon...

[code]

d10 % success %failure % fumble
01 20.000% 80.000% 0.000%
02 36.000% 64.000% 1.000%
03 48.800% 51.200% 2.400%
04 59.040% 40.960% 3.510%
05 67.232% 32.768% 4.250%
06 73.786% 26.214% 4.640%
07 79.028% 20.972% 4.741%
08 83.223% 16.777% 4.626%
09 86.578% 13.422% 4.363%
10 89.263% 10.737% 4.009%
11 91.410% 08.590% 3.609%
12 93.128% 06.872% 3.196%
13 94.502% 05.498% 2.791%
14 95.602% 04.398% 2.411%
[/code]


TN 7 Yields fumble less than 2% at all times
[code]
d10 % success %failure % fumble
1 40.000% 60.000% 0.000%
2 64.000% 36.000% 1.000%
3 78.400% 21.600% 1.800%
4 87.040% 12.960% 1.910%
5 92.224% 07.776% 1.676%
6 95.334% 04.666% 1.328%
7 97.201% 02.799% 0.987%
8 98.320% 01.680% 0.701%
9 98.992% 01.008% 0.483%
[/code]

Quite reasonable the Fumble is never more than 1 in 50

I like Fumbles being more likely the harder the Target number! We should keep in mind that most penalties are assessed through modifing number of dice available, not the TN. If a Fumble on Smithing is Loss of materials used. or Start over, weapon shatters. allowing reuse of the raw material.... so what? that just reflects how hard the job is.... how long is reflected by the # of success needed to finsh with each roll representing a time periode. A fumble on Herbalism.... thats simple... you have the wrong plant but you don't know it... or the right plant but it is ineffective for some unknown reason.

So I ask again. Please spell out the situation where this is unacceptable?

Thirsty Viking wrote: here is a table at TN 7 Dice on the left
formula for success is =1-(((TN-1)/10)^#DICE)
TN-1 is the number of failures per die / 10 gives % to fail on each die ^ by the number of dice is the probablity of failing on EVERY die

In all systems presented high TN makes fumbles more likely. Nobody argues against that. In fact one could argue that the effect you cite should be even more pronounced than it is.

What we argue against is that small aberation at TN 10 that you note. That in that odd case, if I give you more dice to indicate say some advantage that you have, it actually increases your chances of fumbling. I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding this. It seems intuitive that if you have more dice that it should make fumbling less likely. But in some circumstances that's not true. That's the "problem".

Another sort of perceptual problem is that the ratio failures to fumbles always increases with more dice. Lets look at it using the d10 example.

[code]D10 Failure Fumble Ratio
1 90.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2 81.00% 1.00% 1.23%
3 72.90% 2.70% 3.70%
4 65.61% 4.49% 6.84%
5 59.05% 6.19% 10.47%
6 53.14% 7.68% 14.45%
7 47.83% 8.92% 18.65%
8 43.05% 9.89% 22.97%
9 38.74% 10.59% 27.33%
10 34.87% 11.04% 31.67%
11 31.38% 11.28% 35.95%
12 28.24% 11.33% 40.12%
13 25.42% 11.22% 44.16%
14 22.88% 10.99% 48.03%
15 20.59% 10.65% 51.74%[/code]

Note that the same effect exists no matter what TN you look at.

In other words, the more dice I use the more likely that any failure that does occur is a fumble. Again, one would think that any advantage that one had would make the proportion of failures that were fumbles less.

This latter argument is more susceptible to the "effort" argument, but again that seems pretty specious to me in general.

As you note (and I've noted over and over), the first effect is such a small blip in such a small spot that nobody really cares. And the latter effect is also not particularly glaring in play, so again nobody cares. Nor should they be very concerned. The game plays fine as is.

Still, I don't see why it's a bad idea to see if a solution to the "problem" can be found. As a form of entertainment, rather than as a criticism of the system.

Mike

Durgil wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote: here is a table at TN 7 Dice on the left
formula for success is =1-(((TN-1)/10)^#DICE)
TN-1 is the number of failures per die / 10 gives % to fail on each die ^ by the number of dice is the probablity of failing on EVERY die

The formula you are using is just part of what you need. You might want to take a look at this discusion Math Help. What you actually need to use is a binomial distribution (look up BINOMDIST in Excel).

Okay MIke, I think the problem that we're having here, for the most, has to do with the way we are looking at the Math. I agree with the odds for failing in your previous post. The numbers you have for the chance to fumble are good until you get up to rolling 5 dice, then our numbers don't match. Here's what I've got:
[code]# of Dice Fumble
1 N/A
2 1.0%
3 2.7%
4 4.9%
5 7.3%
6 9.8%
7 12.4%
8 14.9%
9 17.2%
10 19.4%
11 21.3%
12 23.0%
13 24.5%
14 25.7%
15 26.7%
16 27.5%
17 28.0%
18 28.4%
19 28.5%
20 28.5%[/code]
That is only true though for rolling two 1s with that many dice. To fumble, there has to be no successes with two 1s rolled. That means that to find out the odds of fumbling, you have to multiply the odds of rolling two 1s with the odds of getting 0 successes. This will give you the following odds of rolling a fumble:
[code]# of Dice Fumble
1 N/A
2 0.8%
3 2.0%
4 3.2%
5 4.3%
6 5.2%
7 5.9%
8 6.4%
9 6.7%
10 6.8%
11 6.7%
12 6.5%
13 6.2%
14 5.9%
15 5.5%
16 5.1%
17 4.7%
18 4.3%
19 3.9%
20 3.5%[/code]
The chance for rolling two 1s does go up with the number of dice that are rolled, but as the number of dice increases, the chance of not getting a single success or more goes down. At first, this second factor does not change enough from one dice to two etc., but eventually the chance of getting 0 successes goes down enough to offset the increase chance of rolling two 1s with more dice and you see the overall chance of a fumble go down once you get past dice pools of 10 or more.

As for the Thirsty Viking, MS Works or Excel, I don't know the difference, but if you use the formula =BINOMDIST(# of Successes,# of Dice, % of Rolling a Success Per Dice,FALSE), you will get the odds of getting that many successes while rolling that many dice with that Target Number. Just Like my post back on Math Help says, I've developed a couple of Excel Spreadsheets that have all of the work done for you, you just have to pick the Target Number, and it gives you the odds for all of this stuff. All you need to tell me is where to send it to.

Binomdist does not work in Works nor do any of the statistical distribution formulae. Just not included. That said, the Binomdist function can be worked out "manually" so to speak. That is, I think that using the FACT function and the formula in the Math Help thread that Jeff came up with that you can do just fine.

I'm not arguing with anyone's math, it all looks correct to me.

What I'm referring to as a "problem" (note how I've taken to using quotes to try and emphasize how little of a problem this really is) is those few places where the combination of TNs and dice are such that adding dice the odds of fumbling go up. Looking at what you have there (I'm assuming that this is TN10) if I am a guy researching my ancestry in a disorganized library, and I have a pool of 4 dice, and I get 4 extra dice for my Drive: Find Roots, my odds of fumbling double. Yes, my odds of failing go down. But my odds of fumbling go up. In absolute terms.

Now you could explain this as effort or zeal or something in ths case, and it counds good. But why then doesn't this happen in other circumstances? It only happens in this limited set of circumstances. So it's an aberration of the system.

Now, it only happens on TN 10, and only for a limited part of the range. I was the first person the last time we discussed this to note that with a high enough pool that it goes back down again. So, yes, it's unlikely that this "problem" circumstance will even arise. And even less likely that anyone would care about it, as the actual odds are very small (<7%) in any case. And even if they do fumble, few people are aware of the aberration in question.

The other issue is one of perspective:

In all cases, while my odds of failing do decrease, my odds of fumbling if I do fail increases. The odds of fumbling with respect to the roll to begin with decrease, yes, but my chance of fumbling increases with respect to my chance of failing. Which is counterintuitive if you think about it as much as I have. Most have not, so it will not be a problem. Let me demonstrate what I think would be a better curve.

[code]d10 success Fail fumble ratio
1 10.00% 90.00% 45.00% 50.00%
2 19.00% 81.00% 28.64% 35.36%
3 27.10% 72.90% 21.04% 28.87%
4 34.39% 65.61% 16.40% 25.00%
5 40.95% 59.05% 13.20% 22.36%
6 46.86% 53.14% 10.85% 20.41%
7 52.17% 47.83% 9.04% 18.90%
8 56.95% 43.05% 7.61% 17.68%
9 61.26% 38.74% 6.46% 16.67%
10 65.13% 34.87% 5.51% 15.81%
11 68.62% 31.38% 4.73% 15.08%
12 71.76% 28.24% 4.08% 14.43%
13 74.58% 25.42% 3.52% 13.87%
14 77.12% 22.88% 3.06% 13.36%
15 79.41% 20.59% 2.66% 12.91%
16 81.47% 18.53% 2.32% 12.50%
17 83.32% 16.68% 2.02% 12.13%
18 84.99% 15.01% 1.77% 11.79%
19 86.49% 13.51% 1.55% 11.47%
20 87.84% 12.16% 1.36% 11.18%[/code]

Perhaps a bit high on the low end for fumbles. And completely fictitious, this doesn't represent any actual odds as produced by the game. But, you can see the trend that would be most intuitive (IMO). That being that failure decreases n all cases, but so do fumbles as a proportion of failures.

But again who but myself notices such things. So with all that, it's not an issue.

But that still doesn't mean that I don't find it a fun challenge to try and find a "solution" to the "problem".

I have now put far more effort into describing a non-problem than is probably healthy. But you keep asking about it. I'm not sure why all the concern. Does anyone out there hold the opinion that I think that this is some crippling feature of the game? I think that I've gone out of my way to tell people not to worry about it.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Binomdist does not work in Works nor do any of the statistical distribution formulae. Just not included. That said, the Binomdist function can be worked out "manually" so to speak. That is, I think that using the FACT function and the formula in the Math Help thread that Jeff came up with that you can do just fine.

Mike Holmes wrote: my odds of fumbling if I do fail increases.

Mike Holmes wrote: But that still doesn't mean that I don't find it a fun challenge to try and find a "solution" to the "problem".

Durgil']

Mike Holmes wrote: e Holmes wrote: my odds of fumbling if I do fail increases.

This is what I'm trying to show you; you can not have a fumble if there are any successes, so these numbers or bogus. To get ligitamate odds you have to look at both - the chance to roll two or more 1s and the chance of getting 0 successes.

The reason I used the "must have more ones than any other single number" house rule is precisely as one of the posters described.

What I don't like is the increasing likelihood that a failure will be a fumble, as the test uses more dice.

It's not a big deal for me, and the house rule seemed to fix the problem nicely. Yes, I do realize that it lowers the chance of fumbling, and thanks for the suggestion about amending: I will amend my rule to say "to avoid fumbling on a failed roll, you must produce a group of matched dice that has more dice in it than the number of ones you rolled in the failure".

For some reason, my last post to this thread seems to have been weirdly formatted (massively indented to the right).

If that makes your eyes hurt, I apologize....


--
Viktor

Durgil wrote:
As for the Thirsty Viking, MS Works or Excel, I don't know the difference, but if you use the formula =BINOMDIST(# of Successes,# of Dice, % of Rolling a Success Per Dice,FALSE), you will get the odds of getting that many successes while rolling that many dice with that Target Number. Just Like my post back on Math Help says, I've developed a couple of Excel Spreadsheets that have all of the work done for you, you just have to pick the Target Number, and it gives you the odds for all of this stuff. All you need to tell me is where to send it to.

Mike Holmes wrote:
What you are saying to me is that you are not concerned with the ratio of failures to fumbles. And you know what? That's a perfectly valid perspective.

durgil wrote:
numbers you have for the chance to fumble are good until you get up to rolling 5 dice, then our numbers don't match. Here's what I've got:
[code]# of Dice Fumble
1 N/A
2 1.0%
3 2.7%
4 4.9%
5 7.3%
6 9.8%
7 12.4%
8 14.9%
9 17.2%
10 19.4%
[/code]

This will give you the following odds of rolling a fumble:
[code]# of Dice Fumble
1 N/A
2 0.8%
3 2.0%
4 3.2%
5 4.3%
6 5.2%
7 5.9%
8 6.4%
9 6.7%
[/code]
Serious i can niether tell what Target number your modeling, nor your errors... but obviously on 2d the chance to fumble is 1% exactly.
assuming you are modeling TN10 your numbers should be Ah i found it, you hard coded the modifier .9 into an equation... when it was already compensated for you. Your numbers should be close to collumn 1 or 3
[code]
#d % 2 %2 *.9 % 2+
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 1.0% 0.9% 1.0%
3 2.4% 2.2% 2.5%
4 3.8% 3.5% 4.2%
5 5.1% 4.6% 5.8%
6 6.1% 5.5% 7.3%
7 6.9% 6.2% 8.5%
8 7.3% 6.6% 9.5%
9 7.5% 6.8% 10.2%
10 7.5% 6.8% 10.7%
11 7.4% 6.6% 11.0%
12 7.1% 6.4% 11.1%
13 6.7% 6.0% 11.0%
14 6.3% 5.6% 10.8%
15 5.8% 5.2% 10.5%
[/code]

1st collum is the % of total rols that are failures with exactly 2 1's
2nd collumn closely models your number withing call it rounding.
3rd collumn is all fumbles without a success.. These are I believe the true numbers we need.

I don't know whats wrong with your math... But I've become sure of mine... we can try to solve this if you want.. or drop it.

Mike wrote:

Look at my theoretical chart that represents my perspecutive of what would be correct. Is it the same as the other chart? No. Is there something non-intuitive about it from the perspective that I have described? No. So how is my statment incorrect.

People are of the belief that statistics is a science. Math is a science, statistics is an art.

Mike

"Or if you have a rationale that points out why this makes sense" to quote myself from the last thread. Which you now have. Great. You have a rationale, to add to TROS, the poster has an optional rule to address the same issue. And I'm still looking at it.

How many times do I have to repeat this that all of these are only a "problem" if you see it the way I do. It's a matter of opinion, not fact. Get it people? So, why you keep on harping on this is really beyond me. As I've now written five times on this thread, it's nothing anyone should be concerned about if they don't want to be. It's nothing that can possibly damage game play in any serious fashion.

It's just a weird part of the way the system works that a few of us are interested in looking at alternate ways to do. It's like a math excercise. We do it more to see it it can be done than anything else. This thread was supposed to be about optional rules. Well, the neat thing about optional rules is that they're optional. If it doesn't make sense to you, do not use it.

I can't say it any more clearly than that.

Mike

on one post you had 50% of failures on 1 d being a fumble for TN 10
I must have missed something in another thread, cause i never saw how you were generating these numbers.

I’m sorry to drag this on with one more post, but I goofed. The odds of rolling two 1s was just that, not two or more. The chart below is for a TN of 10, and it shows the number of Dice rolled, The odds of getting no successes, the odds of getting two OR MORE 1s, and the final overall odds of rolling a fumble.

Revised Chart
[code]# of Dice 0 Successes Two or More 1s Chance of Fumble
1 90.0% N/A N/A
2 81.0% 1.0% 0.8%
3 72.9% 2.8% 2.0%
4 65.6% 5.2% 3.4%
5 59.0% 8.1% 4.8%
6 53.1% 11.4% 6.1%
7 47.8% 15.0% 7.2%
8 43.0% 18.7% 8.0%
9 38.7% 22.5% 8.7%
10 34.9% 26.4% 9.2%
11 31.4% 30.3% 9.5%
12 28.2% 34.1% 9.6%
13 25.4% 37.9% 9.6%
14 22.9% 41.5% 9.5%
15 20.6% 45.1% 9.3%
16 18.5% 48.5% 9.0%
17 16.7% 51.8% 8.6%
18 15.0% 55.0% 8.3%
19 13.5% 58.0% 7.8%
20 12.2% 60.8% 7.4%
[/code]

Sorry for the overtime and the mistake.

PS-The speadsheet that I made has been fixed, so I'll try to get the updated sheets to you if I still have your email.

I swear to God that looked fine on the preview.

Durgil wrote: I’m sorry to drag this on with one more post, but I goofed. The odds of rolling two 1s was just that, not two or more. The chart below is for a TN of 10, and it shows the number of Dice rolled, The odds of getting no successes, the odds of getting two OR MORE 1s, and the final overall odds of rolling a fumble.

Revised Chart
[code]# of Dice 0 Successes Two or More 1s Chance of Fumble
1 90.0% N/A N/A
2 81.0% 1.0% 0.8%
3 72.9% 2.8% 2.0%
4 65.6% 5.2% 3.4%
5 59.0% 8.1% 4.8%
6 53.1% 11.4% 6.1%
7 47.8% 15.0% 7.2%
8 43.0% 18.7% 8.0%
9 38.7% 22.5% 8.7%
10 34.9% 26.4% 9.2%
11 31.4% 30.3% 9.5%
12 28.2% 34.1% 9.6%
13 25.4% 37.9% 9.6%
14 22.9% 41.5% 9.5%
15 20.6% 45.1% 9.3%
16 18.5% 48.5% 9.0%
17 16.7% 51.8% 8.6%
18 15.0% 55.0% 8.3%
19 13.5% 58.0% 7.8%
20 12.2% 60.8% 7.4%
[/code]

Sorry for the overtime and the mistake.

PS-The speadsheet that I made has been fixed, so I'll try to get the updated sheets to you if I still have your email.

Durgil wrote: I swear to God that looked fine on the preview.

Where's this new post at? I'm not seeing anything new.

actually i did it because that page two error was driving me insane... lol

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3442

Revised, Updated, and Corrected. The latest and the Greatest for a TN of 10.

[code]Target Number of 10
# of Dice Chance of Failure Chance of two 1s Odds of Fumbling Fumbles/Failures Ratio
1 90.00% N/A N/A N/A
2 81.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.23%
3 72.90% 2.80% 2.52% 3.46%
4 65.61% 5.23% 4.24% 6.46%
5 59.05% 8.15% 5.94% 10.06%
6 53.14% 11.43% 7.50% 14.11%
7 47.83% 14.97% 8.84% 18.48%
8 43.05% 18.69% 9.93% 23.07%
9 38.74% 22.52% 10.77% 27.80%
10 34.87% 26.39% 11.36% 32.58%
11 31.38% 30.26% 11.73% 37.36%
12 28.24% 34.10% 11.89% 42.10%
13 25.42% 37.87% 11.88% 46.75%
14 22.88% 41.54% 11.73% 51.28%
15 20.59% 45.10% 11.46% 55.67%
16 18.53% 48.53% 11.10% 59.91%
17 16.68% 51.82% 10.67% 63.98%
18 15.01% 54.97% 10.19% 67.87%
19 13.51% 57.97% 9.67% 71.57%
20 12.16% 60.83% 9.13% 75.09%
[/code]

Now, Mike and Thirsty Viking, how do these numbers match-up?

Man, I wish I code get this code thingy to work the way I want it to!

Would you all like me to lock this thread so that everything will be re-focused on the other thread? Lemme know.

Jake

You still have the feint costs wrong on the page :-)

The cost is double the attack bonus (spend 6 dice to add 3 to the attack). The second time you feint against the same opponent, it's that PLUS one, then the next time plus two, and so on.

The costs are the same with a rapier, but it STARTS at +1, then +2, +3...

Also, rapiers can feint from a thrust, everything else has to feint from a slash.

Jake will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that's right now.

Brian.

BrianL wrote: You still have the feint costs wrong on the page :-)

The cost is double the attack bonus (spend 6 dice to add 3 to the attack). The second time you feint against the same opponent, it's that PLUS one, then the next time plus two, and so on.

The costs are the same with a rapier, but it STARTS at +1, then +2, +3...

Also, rapiers can feint from a thrust, everything else has to feint from a slash.

Jake will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that's right now.

Brian.

Hi, all. I've been gone for a while, but I'm back.

For rapiers it's the same cost as always, but there's an additional die to start it off, IRC.

Jake

Hey Jake, 1st let me say welcome back.
reading the rules... it seems like all weapons are at 1 + the number of dice you add, are you saying that rapiers are 2 + the number of dice you add? this is of course for the first feint against an opponent.

Or am i reading things inccorrectly? I'd actually thought it would be easier to fient with a rapier... perhaps your saying opponents are more suspicious of feints when fighting one?

John

This discussion has wandered into 2 threads. See the other one for "is it harder?"

Again, if I'm feinting with anything but a rapier it's going to be 1 die for every bonus die flat. Thus 8 cost for a 4 die bonus. For rapiers, it would be 9 dice for a 4 die bonus. That's it.

Jake

And then an additional +1 die on top of those costs for every subsequent feint...

Brian.

Why do people not like the increasing chance of fumble phenomenon? I think it's great!

Adding more dice increases the chances of success, decreases the chance of regular failure and increases the percentage of failures that will be fumbles. This is precisely how it should be, as people with more dice will have more spectacular results, and, more importantly, the only times they fail will be when something out of their control goes wrong (fumble).

Is there something wrong with this?

That wasn't the only issue, somepeople were upset that Fumbles/attempts also increased across a range of numbers. These people thought that as Dice increase... the player is better at something, he should fumble less often. While that can still be debated... it is a much clearer issue than the one you seized upon in your reading of the thread.

If you agree with those arguments, the question becomes how can we introduce corrections without creating new failings of logic.

The only workable solution I could think of was a seperate FUMBLE ROLL on any failure. Number of dice being based on the Original TN/2 IIRC, also alowing the player to specify before the roll for success dedicating some dice to fumble reduction (slow but sure method of working). The sacrifice of my system is it requires a second roll, or complex dice color adjustment on the 1 roll. I prefer the 2nd roll method myself. Players fail seldom enough in the Game I don't think this is too burdensome.

I didn't find the rules as they are written needed this tweaking, but for those who do.. i think this is the best approach of the rules listed.