|
Bendigeidfran posted:Well there's your problem. You're rolling out all the 20s, you've got to get the 1s out first so the dice will do better later. Don't forget to always have the 20 facing up to train the die! osirisisdead posted:Making any in-character decisions based on dice probability is a prime example of meta-gaming. It should be avoided. Generally it's used to find damage averages or how often you can expect to succeed on skill checks, so the first's not so much of an issue and the second isn't an issue unless you dislike people knowing how good they are at a task
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Making any in-character decisions based on dice probability is a prime example of meta-gaming. It should be avoided. It's really not so far from a person thinking about whether they'll make a jump in real life, just nerdier. "How likely am I to succeed" is a very natural human factor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
I rarely think through my actions before I perform them, makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Don't forget to always have the 20 facing up to train the die! No you store the 20 DOWN so that the edges of the face get more worn and it's less likely to land 20-side down and therefore 1-side up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:No you store the 20 DOWN so that the edges of the face get more worn and it's less likely to land 20-side down and therefore 1-side up. Uh excuse me but as the plastic settles your die will be biased towards the 1  I love dice superstition
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Don't forget to always have the 20 facing up to train the die! I used to game with a guy who was really bad about dice probabilities. Not in the 'doesn't understand' probability. In the 'thinks he understands probabilities too much' kind of way. It started when we were playing some kind of really simple boardgame. We lacked dice, so somebody brought up an RNG on their phone. He balked stating that computer generated numbers aren't "really random" but rather were based on a seed and could be exploited if you knew the seed. I explained that the four of us gathered around the table did not know the seed and were not living computers so it probably wasn't going to happen, but he refused. He said he'd rather not play than use a computer generated RNG. The next time I dealt with him was at a LARP. In Vampire: the Requiem (the LARP environment at least) you use a set of 10 playing cards to generate a random number. My friend said that he refused to use the cards and would prefer to use a d10 instead since it didn't involve 'deterministic human factors'. This would have been sorta okay accept he is extremely tall and often had to roll his dice on the floor. This meant breaking the scene and leaning down so far he was practically sitting on the carpet. Then he'd roll. Assuming he didn't lose his die he'd read the number off. People often didn't trust him so you'd have three people crowded around a die trying to read off its number. I explained to him that the whole point of the cards was to keep the scene going. He said he'd rather not play than use some kind of RNG that could be manipulated. I told him that dice aren't "really random" either, that there were factors such as the starting position of the die, the number of times it hit a surface before it came to a stop, its velocity and so on. I had meant this as a joke. Next game he showed up (to a LARP) with a dice tower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
I set my dice resting with the 20 (or other highest number) on the top, but it's not out of any superstition other than I like seeing the high numbers. In combat or other situation with a lot of rolling, I don't bother between rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:lanky dice grog He was also a habitual dice stacker and dice-facer, which is a nice little bit of cognitive dissonance with the other stuff. If memory serves he showed up at a particular game with a spreadsheet of how he could maximize the crafting efficiency of another player at the table, despite the other player never asking him for any such thing. Also, to be fair to him regarding the dice at a LARP, there was a rather notable element at that particular one who was pretty clearly cheating in a way that no one could really prove but everyone knew to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Generally it's used to find damage averages or how often you can expect to succeed on skill checks, so the first's not so much of an issue and the second isn't an issue unless you dislike people knowing how good they are at a task You shouldn't even know the DC of the task you are attempting. Rulebook Heavily posted:It's really not so far from a person thinking about whether they'll make a jump in real life, just nerdier. "How likely am I to succeed" is a very natural human factor. "You lose your turn from hesitation." I've heard that excuse from more than one meta-gaming rear end in a top hat. Hell, I was that meta-gaming rear end in a top hat ten years ago. If you get mad because your character fails a check in elfgames, you need to check your loving priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
No one said anything about being mad? If one of your players really asked you if a skill check looks easy or hard you would, what, stare them down or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:You shouldn't even know the DC of the task you are attempting. Why? You're telling me professional adventurers cannot estimate the difficulty of the things they're doing? They just constantly have no clue, whatsoever, if they have any chance of succeeding or failing on any given task?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:You shouldn't even know the DC of the task you are attempting. "Look, guys, don't engage with the mechanics of the game! That's METAGAMING and it's bad!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:You shouldn't even know the DC of the task you are attempting. Please, cite the sources for your grog or use the quote function. Thank you. (But yeah, what Night and Darwinism said.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Yes. We abstract away all of the weird possibilities for failure in a chaotic and uncertain environment that has magic and owlbears into a dice roll. You don't get to know. You can have some vague idea based on similar situations, but you don't know that you have exactly an 11/20 chance at success on disarming this trap. Or a 7/10 chance of resisting the effects of the evil magician's mindfuckery spell. You know generally how good you are at things by your modifiers. You don't get to make mathematical predictions while playing elfgames.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:"You lose your turn from hesitation." e: e: never mind LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:You know generally how good you are at things by your modifiers. You don't get to make exact statistical predictions while playing elfgames. But modifiers dont tell you how good you are. You can only tell if your good at something by long term observation (something you tend to do with yourself) or by achieving something that collectively is considered difficult. Why is it okay to track what you can and cant do based your modifiers (metagaming) and no by how difficult a task is?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
You're grasping at straws to try to justify your munchkin-like metagaming. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:You're grasping at straws to try to justify your munchkin-like metagaming. What does that even mean
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
kingcom posted:What does that even mean quote:
*bows*
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Wait is this another case where someone is able to just find all the appropriate grog to pass some kind of grog Turing test
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Yes, the Grogturing has been passed. Well done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Wait is this another case where someone is able to just find all the appropriate grog to pass some kind of grog Turing test Thats a pretty cool idea, someone make a markov bot of it TIA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:You're grasping at straws to try to justify your munchkin-like metagaming. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... you didn't answer my question also, your modifier is irrelevant if you don't have any context to apply it to, which is pretty obvious you'd only know a +10 is good if you knew that a DC 15 was really hard
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
S.J. posted:you didn't answer my question I'm not going to answer your stupid question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:I'm not going to answer your stupid question. Actually now I really want to know how that conversation would play out. Do you appoint one person to always be the GM so the players will never know the difficulties of the tasks they're trying to accomplish unless they can just attempt it over and over again in an attempt to pin the difficulty down? So, like, your PCs are basically the kinds of idiots that get put on Fail Army videos for everyone to laugh at?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
I'm sorry. I should have written: I'm not going to answer your stupid questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:I'm sorry. I should have written: I'm not going to answer your stupid questions. Seriously though, all joking aside, if a player asked you whether or not his character thinks a jump looks difficult or not, would your response would be something like, "you lose your action for dallying," or what? Because that's basically what you said and I'm trying to figure out if you were just misunderstanding the question. You don't have to respond to those questions with a number, you know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
What is happening in this thread right now. Is this the real life or is this just fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Caught in a landslide No escape from reality Open your eyes Look up to the skies and see I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy Because I'm easy come, easy go A little high, little low Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
All you have to do to make this thread start eating itself like the Ouroboros is say "Dice math" in three consecutive posts. You don't even need to be looking in a mirror.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
More like osirisisdumb
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Seriously though, all joking aside, if a player asked you whether or not his character thinks a jump looks difficult or not, would your response would be something like, "you lose your action for dallying," or what? Because that's basically what you said and I'm trying to figure out if you were just misunderstanding the question. You don't have to respond to those questions with a number, you know? Stop making sense!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
But this is actually a grognard-related thing that I want to know more about. There is a lot of howling about how metagaming is horrible and you should never conflate player knowledge with character knowledge, but that really conflicts with the idea of "player skill" that bemoan the lack of. Are these two types of grognard, or is it just a double standard?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Yes. I'm a big fan of trying to position people to not think about their action as math in RPGs, but this doesn't work. There are a ton of little pieces of information that the PC would have access to that the players don't (how big is the chasm I'm trying to jump over, how far have I been able to jump in the past, is this campaign one where human jumping abilities are greater than the real world, etc), and it's way easier to represent that with just a quick number rather than by playing 20 questions. Just saying "don't worry about it, just roll the dice" and then calling them an idiot for trying to make a near-impossible jump does way more damage to a player's vision of the world than just abstracting all the unspoken variables into a quick number. EDIT: jigokuman posted:But this is actually a grognard-related thing that I want to know more about. The 'player skill' thing is generally about emphasizing creative puzzle solving skills in-game. It's the idea that you should be coming up with clever schemes to hedge your bets, not necessarily that you should optimize your numbers. OtspIII fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
I thought I was dumb for falling for it but it keeps going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
jigokuman posted:But this is actually a grognard-related thing that I want to know more about. It usually revolves around metagaming being bad when someone else is doing it, but player skill being great when the grog is doing it, and quite frequently revolves around things like it being bad when the shy stuttery guy tries to play the Bard and talk, but fine when the dumb grog tries to play the Wizard and use magic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I'm a big fan of trying to position people to not think about their action as math in RPGs, but this doesn't work. There are a ton of little pieces of information that the PC would have access to that the players don't (how big is the chasm I'm trying to jump over, how far have I been able to jump in the past, is this campaign one where human jumping abilities are greater than the real world, etc), and it's way easier to represent that with just a quick number rather than by playing 20 questions. Just saying "don't worry about it, just roll the dice" and then calling them an idiot for trying to make a near-impossible jump does way more damage to a player's vision of the world than just abstracting all the unspoken variables into a quick number. Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Also, in a situation like that, a character should have another stronger party member (or the whole rest of the party) roping them off so they'd swing and take 20 feet of fall damage rather than the mountain of dice for falling to the bottom of the bottomless chasm, or whatever. Feel free to roll the dice, change your mind and retcon the last five minutes, especially with new players. But, if we're talking about the poo poo-hole that is d20, it's clear that jumping DC's are distinctly charted in the PHB, which is why it was a stupid question in that instance. I didn't feel like leading him to that simple conclusion while being attacked by a bunch of idiot poo poo-posting trolls. There's a lot more that can happen than jumping. If this was Jump Quest, then maybe, but you don't get to know that you are fighting a level 6 sorcerer with an 18 Charisma and an Amulet of Spell Shenanigans +3 You know that he waggles his fingers (make a spellcraft check to maybe tell what spell he's casting, and then roll a d20 for your saving throw, ok, you failed and your dick falls off, take 4 con damage and you are stunned(or whatever) for grasping your dick in pain for the next two rounds.) jigokuman posted:But this is actually a grognard-related thing that I want to know more about. The people who bitch that you didn't min-max your character for optimal damage output are tryhard losers who have normalized their lovely tryhard version of playing D&D. If you take elfgames that seriously, I'm going to make fun of you relentlessly for being a loving tryhard loser. They are not grognards, they are tryhard losers. Grognards are people who refuse to play the new versions of a gaming system and preach relentlessly the "superiority" of their older elfgames, even though it's hard to find material, the older elfgames were replaced for good reasons, and the newer editions are really just fine. They are also generally losers, but definitely a different kind of loser. Cyberpunkey Monkey fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
If you're not going to tell people how hard poo poo is to do, why have statistics at all? If someone wouldn't tell me what I needed to roll at least in the ballpark of, I'd honestly assume they were going to arbitrarily determine if I succeeded or failed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Doesn't whatever the hell osiris is ranting about fall under the "no homegrown" rule?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Don't let someone you don't trust be your Dungeon Master in D&D or in BDSM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:25
|
|