Re: "Quantity" and "Contest" Ratings

From: Kevin Blackburn <kevin_at_...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:36:40 +0100


In article <20030718184602.B23413_at_...>, Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...> writes
>On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 10:44:56PM +0100, Kevin Blackburn wrote:
>> The first type is a ???quantity??? rating. Some base quantity is set to
>> a value of 12. Each doubling of the underlying quantity is worth a +5 to
>> the rating, in a logarithmic manner ??? thus multiplying the quantity by
>> eight is only a +15, not, for instance +20 for a linear relationship
>> between multiplier and bonus. This is reasonably explicit in the rules.
>> A classic example of a ???quantity??? rating is Wealth.
>
>There's certainly to a great deal of logic to what you say about a
>log. progression, but I don't think it's necessarily as cut and
>dried as you suggest (or indeed as I might prefer). I wouldn't
>take it as a given that that all abilities that might bear such an
>interpretation would do so; nor that the ones that do (more or less...)
>necessarily have the _same_ logarithmic progression.

Indeed - I am definitely idealising things.
>
>It's in one place implied that a mastery's difference is supposed
>to correspond to 'odd' of 4 or 5 to 1, for example, if I'm recalling
>correctly...

Any idea where?
>
>
>> The second type is a ???contest??? rating. Again, there is a base rating
>> of 12. However, the +5 comes if a given contestant is twice as likely to
>> win over someone with a base rating. That is, if you arranged a sequence
>> of one-on-one contests, the 17 rating would win twice as many as their
>> 12 rating opponents. A rating of 2W would win four times as many, and so
>> forth. There is an assumption that a 2W rating would win twice as often
>> over a 17 rating ??? which is an assumption about the rating scale
>> rather than a property of probability.
>
>You mean that, these may not be the actual odds of such a (simple)
>contest, but that conceptually they ought to be, is that the gist of
>what you're saying here?

The truth is that I didn't want to spend the time, and doubted I had the statistical skills, to do the actual calculation, especially within the structure of an extended contest. I'm content to be challenged on the precise ratios of changes in ability to frequency of wins - the important idea is that its not about how many you can take on at once, but how likely you are to win a single contest.
>
>
>> A major point of the HeroWars system is to avoid anyone having to worry
>> about detailed arithmetic. Perhaps the appropriate advice to a games
>> master is to let players know whether their abilities are ???contest???
>> or ???quantity??? ratings, and to be aware there treasured multiple
>> masteries will suddenly collapse into a more meagre rating if the
>> contest is suddenly against a quantity. The game master might also want
>> to have some idea of the translation for any ratings that seem crucial.
>> This translation should take into account any magical nature of the game
>> world ??? perhaps you want a good Orlanthi to be able to outrun a horse.
>
>I think actual conversion between two different numeric ratings might
>be over-egging things. I'm not really unhappy with the idea of a
>person being able to outrun a horse (in theory true, actually, over
>sufficiently long distances...), though going by the Anaxial's
>numbers, there's certainly issues with this happening at a narratively
>appropriate-seeming point of the ability scale.

Simulating a heroic environment, where maximum game fun rules means you are quite right. It's just as a GM I like some grasp of what the rule system might mean for when things aren't working right.

>But that aside,
>sit-mods hide a multitude of sins...

You too? Good, I'm sure its the way its meant to be.
>
>
>> (If you like this sort of nonsense, then I could follow up with related
>> stuff on how to run a Many-onto-one combat)
>
>I would indeed.

Then see "Many-to-one combats".

-- 
Kevin Blackburn                         Kevin_at_...

Powered by hypermail