Zornhau Forums

Agamemnon wrote:Variance according to CP size.
The first issue to come up was that the higher the CP, the higher the variance. Mathematically, that's going to be true and no one is arguing otherwise.
(...)
Thirtythr33 runs the math, because he's better at that sort of thing than I am, and provides us with useful graphs.
(...)
Even at 30CP v 30CP, neither side is liable to open with more than 20 dice at a time. The difference between 5v5 dice and 20v20 dice is only 1.2MoS different in terms of even swing on average.

Agamemnon wrote:The Freakish Roll issue.
The next point raised was something along the lines of "but freakish rolls are possible and get worse as die pool size increases." Again we need to break down what this problem actually means. If the goal is to make it so that freakish rolls simply can't happen, then we can never have a die pool higher than 4, as you can get to DR0 unarmed and MoS5 means I can kill someone in a single blow. If we make it any higher, then we are accepting that the bar isn't "it should be impossible." The bar is "at what point is the likelihood of a freakish roll statistically important enough to worry about?"

Two characters both at 25CP. CharA Swings for 21D. CharB Parries for 17D. CharA gets a MoS10.

• CharA could get MoS10 out of 21d with a 0.438% chance.
• CharB could get a MoS10 out of 17d with a 0.005% chance.

\ Band of Bastards d10 exploding 10s with optional contested

A:=1;    \ Number of dice in your pool

\ For a contested action set the following variable B.
\ A negative result means your opponent rolled more successes.
B:=0;    \ Number of dice in your opponent's pool

sA:=count 5< A#(accumulate x:=d10 while x=10) ;
sB:=count 5< B#(accumulate x:=d10 while x=10) ;
sA - sB

\ Band of Bastards Non-Exploding with optional contested

A:=1;    \ Number of dice in your pool

\ For a contested action set the following variable B.
\ A negative result means your opponent rolled more successes.
B:=0;    \ Number of dice in your opponent's pool

sA:=count 5< A#d10 ;
sB:=count 5< B#d10 ;
sA - sB

\ Scoundrels D6 with optional Contested

A:=1;    \ Number of dice in your pool

\ For a contested action set the following variable B.
\ A negative result means your opponent rolled more successes.
B:=0;    \ Number of dice in your opponent's pool

sA:=count 3< A#d6 ;
sB:=count 3< B#d6 ;
sA - sB

Agamemnon wrote:On Caps
(...)
Which is more obnoxious and seems less natural? A character with Agility 10, Cunning 10, and Longswords 10... Or a character with Agility 6, Cunning 4, and Longsword 15?
I'd rather see more of the latter than the former.

Agamemnon wrote:On Challenge

dra wrote:It seems you don't quite get gamistic approach concept so let me help you.
(...)

I don't follow your use of gamist and narrativist here at all. In fact, it seems like you're using them backwards. His version claims that because in the narrative you are the best swordsmen, you are, in fact, the best swordsmen -- that sounds like a narrative approach. On the other hand, you're arguing that your opposition must mechanically scale with you in order to remain a challenge... I don't see how that's not the gamist position here.

This is why people hate GNS, by the way. No one can agree on what those words actually mean in context half the time.

Benedict wrote:

dra wrote:Instead you argued that it doesn't happen which obviously I defended. The rest is in post and I regret you deleted that part where your ego got better of you

I deleted it by mistake, not by some ego trip. I tried to retrieve it but sadly I cannot. I already informed the team about it.

Benedict wrote:The chance for CharA to get exactly a MoS10 is 1.243%. Which translates in rolling a 100 once on a d100 after a hundred rolls, give or take. Unlikely. Of course. Freakish? Not so sure.

Benedict wrote:The chance for CharB to score a MoS10 is 0,052%. Which translates in rolling a 100 once on a d100 after two thousand rolls give or take. Now this is getting closer to freakish, isn't it?

Benedict wrote:At the moment I tried to reply to dra with a quote. By mistake I clicked on edit instead and edited his post. In essence my reply was posted under dra's name when it was too late to remedy.

thirtythr33 wrote:Since we are getting nitpicky about probability

thirtythr33 wrote:You might find this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

thirtythr33 wrote:1 tempo per 10 CP of the highest CP combatant.

thirtythr33 wrote:One crazy (but awesome?) idea is to make the number of tempos per phrase a function of combatant CP. 1 tempo per 10 CP of the highest CP combatant.

CP 1-9 = 1 tempo
CP 10-19 = 2 tempos
CP 20-29 = 3 tempos

If you had say a 9CP v 20CP, both characters would have to go 3 tempos before refresh.

This gives the illusion of very skilled combatants moving faster and encourages the sizes of attacks and defenses to be apportioned into similar sizes because you are saving dice for later tempos.

It would also give a really neat change in the tactical feel of the combats depending on their skill levels. Poor fighters are all about taking slow hay-maker swings at each-other, while skilled combatants need to be reserved and not over-commit lest they go to tempo 3 with no dice left.

thirtythr33 wrote:We each have 21 CP
I attack for 7
You deflect and strike for 19 + 2AC
I feint to add 7 more (cost 7)
I get ~7 successes, you get ~10
you win ~MOS3
and follow up with a 3 dice attack
to get 1-2MOS attack

Attack with a Swing or Thrust without declaring a Feint. After the opponent’s defense is declared, but before any dice are rolled the attacker shouts “ Feint!”, pays the activation cost, and nominates a new target wheel. They may then increase their allocated pool for the feint attack by one die for every two dice spent (spend 4 dice from your remaining CP, get +2 dice for the attack). They may also change their maneuver to any other basic offensive maneuver, provided they pay any additional AC required.

Agamemnon wrote:The problem with this approach is that it becomes a bit.. unpredictable. In one round I might decide to throw a 14 die offensive, leaving myself 4. In the next round, we might decide to piddle around with 2 and 3 die attacks for a long time, feeling each other out. These are both kind of neat and cinematic on their own, but we create a situation where the round only ever "ends" when both sides are out of dice. Most of the time, that's going to wind up with someone getting some free whacks in. If I have the higher CP.. I'm almost incentivized to see how few dice I can get away with spending so the round will end with me getting a free 4 die attack on you, or whatever.

• Differentiates Attributes from Proficiencies enough in terms of CP contribution to encourage low Ref high Prof builts viable. As it is now you must go Ag+Cu+Prof as high as you can to have a combat-heavy character.
• Creates a theoretical infinite number of Tempi within one Phrase. Making lightning fast exchanges or slow slug-fests viable.

• Needs a lot of testing, as it changes combat fundamentally, hence changing character creation approach, hence changing priority assesment, hence... As I said, a lot of testing.

Agamemnon wrote:Re: Feint
Much like we addressed the issue of "all-in investor" we addressed the problem with Feint not working like it was meant to. Narratively, a feint is supposed to be me tricking you into defending inappropriately. It's a decision I make from the beginning. Mechanically, the current feint rules don't trick your opponent at all, they just either give you a way to punish your opponent if after you declared your attack you see that they've under-invested in defense.. or a way to try and desperately match an opponent who has radically over-invested. The new feint mechanics will bring the maneuver in line with what it is supposed to be, narratively.

Benedict wrote:Agreed. The only way to streamline it it would be to limit CP investment per Tempo on attack with a constant factor.

CP is Reflex+Prof. The limit/tempo could be Prof score (excluding AC costs). Leaving you Reflex (more or less) for wiggle space. This should be independent of Preempting tho.

Char A has Ref8+Prof4=12CP. Char B has Ref4+Prof8=12CP.

Char A can devote up to 4CP in an attack.
Max per Tempo
4D Swing/Thrust; 8 dice left
4D Power Swing; 7 dice left
4D Precise Thrust; 6 dice left
4D Parry; 8CP left
4D Counter; 7CP left
4D Bind & Strike; 6CP left

Char B can go up to 8CP per attack.
Max per Tempo
8D Swing/Thrust; 4 dice left
8D Power Swing; 3 dice left
8D Precise Thrust; 2 dice left
and so on...

This approach, in a free-form bidding environment, has the following drawback. Ref has a cap while Proficiencies do not. The most obvious solution is to say

"Each tempo you can invest up to your Proficiency score or 10, whichever is smaller, plus any maneuver activation costs."

and be done with it.

• How will this impact lower-proficiency characters? If I have a prof 4 -- someone who's a skilled thug more than a swordsman, or a student still learning to handle himself -- but I have good reflexes, I might have 10CP and be okay overall. With this setup, I'm going to be forced to spend my CP in specific ways - either two tempos of 4 and one at 2, or I pick two tempos of 4 spending 2AC along the way. The place this gets weirder is if I'm fighting someone who has my stats in reverse -- 10CP, but with reflex 4, prof 6. If that guy throws 6 dice in the first exchange, I'm prevented from answering it in kind. Is this desireable? Will this cause problems? I'm not sure.
• How does this effect things like counter or other maneuvers that can be used to get you more dice in the process? Does this decrease their value, given that you can only ever use as many dice as your proficiency? Let's assume the same guy is fighting a more skilled opponent for a moment. 10 vs 12, prof 6, ref 6. You make for an even split and attack me with 6 dice. I spend 2 in activation and counter for my maximum of 4. Miraculously, I win, 4 to 3. I now have 7 dice in my pool for this next attack -- but I can still only spend 4. I make a 4 die attack, you throw in 4 for a deflect & strike and pay the AC. You win this one, I eat a sword to the face, and stare sadly at the 2dice I really would have liked to have used.
• Per the above scenario, does this effectively hamstring less skilled fighters from taking on stronger opponents? That same match might take place again with the underdog's SA firing at 5 dice. He now has 15 dice to his opponent's 12. On paper, this should look like his match, but he can only ever throw 4 dice at a time. We could argue that the opponent will run out of dice faster, in theory, but that's only true if said opponent never lands a wounding blow as the impact would could easily clean out the difference in dice.
• In theory, you can have an infinite number of tempi within one phrase, but in practice would anyone play along with that? If you're defending and the attacker declares only a 3 die attack, will you always conservatively match him, or will you assume that must be bait for a feint (under the currently released rules) and invest 6 in something like a bind & strike? I have a suspicion that even without the formal two-tempo structure, most people will wind up investing half of their pool at a time just to be safe. I could be wrong, on this account though.

Benedict wrote:Differentiates Attributes from Proficiencies enough in terms of CP contribution to encourage low Ref high Prof builts viable. As it is now you must go Ag+Cu+Prof as high as you can to have a combat-heavy character.

Benedict wrote: As for my faint within a feint querry. You trick me into defending innapropriately. But I trick you in return that I took the bait. But you intended exactly that from the start. And so on. Do you think it's viable? Or too much trouble?

Agamemnon wrote:

Benedict wrote:"Each tempo you can invest up to your Proficiency score or 10, whichever is smaller, plus any maneuver activation costs."

My thoughts, in no particular order:

How will this impact lower-proficiency characters? If I have a prof 4 -- someone who's a skilled thug more than a swordsman, or a student still learning to handle himself -- but I have good reflexes, I might have 10CP and be okay overall. With this setup, I'm going to be forced to spend my CP in specific ways - either two tempos of 4 and one at 2, or I pick two tempos of 4 spending 2AC along the way. The place this gets weirder is if I'm fighting someone who has my stats in reverse -- 10CP, but with reflex 4, prof 6. If that guy throws 6 dice in the first exchange, I'm prevented from answering it in kind. Is this desireable? Will this cause problems? I'm not sure.

How does this effect things like counter or other maneuvers that can be used to get you more dice in the process? Does this decrease their value, given that you can only ever use as many dice as your proficiency? Let's assume the same guy is fighting a more skilled opponent for a moment. 10 vs 12, prof 6, ref 6. You make for an even split and attack me with 6 dice. I spend 2 in activation and counter for my maximum of 4. Miraculously, I win, 4 to 3. I now have 7 dice in my pool for this next attack -- but I can still only spend 4. I make a 4 die attack, you throw in 4 for a deflect & strike and pay the AC. You win this one, I eat a sword to the face, and stare sadly at the 2dice I really would have liked to have used.

Per the above scenario, does this effectively hamstring less skilled fighters from taking on stronger opponents? That same match might take place again with the underdog's SA firing at 5 dice. He now has 15 dice to his opponent's 12. On paper, this should look like his match, but he can only ever throw 4 dice at a time. We could argue that the opponent will run out of dice faster, in theory, but that's only true if said opponent never lands a wounding blow as the impact would could easily clean out the difference in dice.

In theory, you can have an infinite number of tempi within one phrase, but in practice would anyone play along with that? If you're defending and the attacker declares only a 3 die attack, will you always conservatively match him, or will you assume that must be bait for a feint (under the currently released rules) and invest 6 in something like a bind & strike? I have a suspicion that even without the formal two-tempo structure, most people will wind up investing half of their pool at a time just to be safe. I could be wrong, on this account though.

Agamemnon wrote:That's not me shooting down the idea. That's my brain in debug mode.

Agamemnon wrote:

Benedict wrote:Differentiates Attributes from Proficiencies enough in terms of CP contribution to encourage low Ref high Prof builts viable. As it is now you must go Ag+Cu+Prof as high as you can to have a combat-heavy character.

At least within the coming build, that's not so much of an issue. Most of the combat characters I've seen will generally wind up with reflex 4-6 but with a high proficiency.

Agamemnon wrote:

Benedict wrote: As for my faint within a feint querry. You trick me into defending innapropriately. But I trick you in return that I took the bait. But you intended exactly that from the start. And so on. Do you think it's viable? Or too much trouble?

Funny thing. One proposed version of the revised combat rules effectively had something like that, but it required maneuver cards to make work. Essentially, I'd decide what maneuvers I was using and declare my attack with one card face up, paying activation and declaring dice. You'd do the same, declaring your defense face up, paying activation and declaring dice. Afterward, I could reveal the card under it and pay it's activation (which could be anything from a feint to changing the type of attack, yadda yadda). Then you could do the same if you had another card already selected.

The thing that made this neat would be that you had to select all that stuff before the tempo started to play out. You couldn't see that your opponent did X with his defense and then go "ha ha. Sorry. Just kidding. Feint!" because you screwed up your dice allocation.

I really enjoyed the idea for the head-fakes you could play out with it.. .BUT... it both required cards to make it work properly (as much as I love play-aids, I hate mandatory play aids on principle) and it would slow down combat way too much.