Alleged non-linearity.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:02:09 +0100 (BST)

David Dunham:
> > Joe1 Close Combat 17 (17 AP)
> > Joe2 Close Combat 2w (22 AP)
> > Joe3 Close Combat 17w2 (57 AP)

> According to my skill calculator, Joe3 has a 100% chance of winning
> either an extended or simple contest against Joe1 (remember, he has 2
> bumps and thus cannot fail). Joe2 has slightly better odds (Joe1 only
> wins 99% of the time in an extended contest, and 93% of the time in a
> simple contest).

According to mine <http://joyce.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/analyser>, not so:

17 vs. 17W2 (or '17WW' as my venerable code insists you call it, contra later Rory-ing):

Win for A  4.25% 
     Tie   4.75% 
Win for B  91.0%

2W vs. 17W2

Win for A  5.75%
     Tie   4.25%
Win for B  90.0%


Thus the Joe1 does have a better chance of _not losing_ than Joe2, but not of actually winning. Though this is quite subtle, actually: the 'cancelled mastery' special case means that when Joe 2 and Joe 3 both get net failures (i.e., Joe 2 continually, Joe 3 a net failure from a fumble), Joe 2 _always_ wins, due to lower die roll. Without this rule, they'd all be ties, and Joe 2 would be seriously in the mire, even compared to Joe 1.

I do stress this is subtle, as a) I only noticed it today when I fixed my calculator to implement the above rule, and more to the point b) I bet you no-one really analysed it in that much detail at the time, or worried about the above case. (Lucky break, for once...)

[bump-downs]
> It's likely that certain Chaotic monsters have this ability, however.

GMTA. I had that very thought when I read the rulebook on bump-downs, and thought, 'sword on the wall in Act I'...

[my 'most pointless rule' nomination]
> > I'm sure there'll be hot competition, but I nominate the 'Target
> > Number 20' makeworkery on p.116. Really, why?
>
> Presumably because of the "20 always fumbles" rule on the same page.
>
> This makes the difference between a target number of 19 and 20
> greater (indeed, meaningful in an simple contest).

But the right hand giveth, and the left hand taketh away: it has the equal and opposite effect of eliding _any_ distinction between 20 and 1W (in the uncancelled cases, at least). So what was the net gain, to justify the extra (if morsel-sized) rule? (I still haven't bothered to code it into my calculator, whole extra line that it'd be...)

G'luck,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail