D&D General Why DPR Sucks: Discussing Whiteroom Theorycrafting

[Xeviat]

Yup, that's fair. My wording was poor.

No worries!

I got into "white room analysis" way back in 3E, when my party's Ranger (two-weapon fighting, weapon finesse) felt constantly overshadowed by the party's barbarian (two-handed weapon, high strength). He was spending feats for his style and not coming up even with a character who didn't have to spend feats on his style.

Damage isn't the only thing, and there's more differences between different characters, but white room analysis can really help make sure that options are balanced against each other when those options are damage options.

 

[Mistwell]

I feel like I just wrote about this, and either you didn't read it, or you aren't familiar with baseball statistics.

It's the later. It's not a good analogy tool because most of us are not familiar with it, and we have no idea if your assessment of how useful it is, is actually accurate or based on your personal opinions. I know Batting Average appears as a stat very often. I know some analysts disagree with your assessment of it. I know it's a decent stat if you don't have better stats to go off because, "First off, it should be stated that batting average, like all the other stats sabermetricians love to hate (W-L, RBI, SV, even ERA), does not mean nothing. If you hit for a high average, chances are you’re a good hitter, and if you hit for a low average, chances are you’re a poor hitter. Likewise, there is no doubt a positive correlation between wins for starting pitchers and their underlying performance (FIP, SIERA, or whatever else you care to use)...The rub, of course, comes from the fact that we simply have better numbers to look at."

Taken that way, since we don't have a better stat for D&D to look at, if DPR is Batting Average, we should be using DPR. Because like Batting Average, it's a decent stat which does correlate to wins, it's just not the best if you have a better alternative stat. Which...we don't for D&D.

Bottom line though, I just have no context to know if your analogy is even useful. And if it is, I am not sure your analogy is even proving what you thought it did given we are not discussing a field with a ton of more detailed stats to draw from instead.

Which is why I keep wondering, why do you keep using it?

I gave you Player Efficiency Rating (John Hollingers universal stat for the NBA) and you dropped it, I presume because you're not too familiar with it. Which is fair enough...so now you understand why a lot of us are not getting much out of your Batting Average comparison. If you got that concept with an NBA stat, why are you still perusing the even-less popular Baseball stat?

 

[RangerWickett]

I do not come to this conversation from a position of caring about stats. I care about teamwork, and making games that let you do cool stuff with cooperation.

Has anyone here played Magicka, a video game where you can have four wizards running around flinging spells that can combine in wonky ways?

One of the jankiest joyful hour of gaming I had was when some friends and I worked to set up a 'gauntlet.' It's possible in the game to make forcefields, and it's possible to fire laser beams. But laser beams bounce off forcefields, and if you have enough forcefields, you can create a hallway enemies have to run down, and one guy can zap a laser beam that bounces back and forth and back and forth and hits everyone. It was far more effort than it was worth, but it was thrilling to pull it off.

(Most of the time, you just hit your teammates.)


For a less-silly example, look at Marvel Ultimate Alliance, where throwing Thor's Hammer at Cap's Shield does a cool burst. That game had all sorts of combos of different characters' super-powers.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I got into "white room analysis" way back in 3E, when my party's Ranger (two-weapon fighting, weapon finesse) felt constantly overshadowed by the party's barbarian (two-handed weapon, high strength). He was spending feats for his style and not coming up even with a character who didn't have to spend feats on his style.

That's easy for the DM to fix though - just drop in a decent magic shortsword somewhere.

 

[Azzy]

Personally I don't find spreadsheet/whiteroom analysis particularly useful. There are just too many variables.

I've tried doing some scenarios myself, but ended up writing a combat simulator (I was bored) because DPR is just one side of the equation. Defenses, survivability and so on all matter.

I mostly agree. I think theorycrafting has its uses, but that it gives a very incomplete picture. It's nice for looking at things in isolation, but because there are so many variables in actual gameplay (and that's not even getting to the non-combat aspects of play or that most D&D players a more casual and not optimizers) that it's not broadly meaningful.

 

[Azzy]

No worries!

I got into "white room analysis" way back in 3E, when my party's Ranger (two-weapon fighting, weapon finesse) felt constantly overshadowed by the party's barbarian (two-handed weapon, high strength). He was spending feats for his style and not coming up even with a character who didn't have to spend feats on his style.

To be fair, 3e was a hot mess and had some options that were intentionally traps.

 

[Todd Roybark]

So I think it's a misrepresentation to imply it was being used as a universal stat improperly.

No but DPR is more akin to Points Per Game as a stat then Player Efficiency Rating.
To use an old reference, even a chucker like Alan Iverson can make a PPG stat line look falsely impressive (when your points equal shots taken, something is awry).

Treantmonk, to his disservice, has not embraced a spirit of inquiry, and acknowledged the valid concerns regarding how he has judge the relative weight of what he has taken to be evidence.
No, rather, TM has done the opposite. Treantmonk stated on The Giant's in the Playground, the video is "just his opinion" and other people can have differing opinions.

No one enjoys having flaws in their conceptual paradigms pointed out, but if one is interested in the truth, or as clear a view of something as possible, taking the lumps and leaning into trying to understand the critics is necessary.

Retreating into the line of "it is just my opinion", means he has stopped listening to others, and is not interested in "the truth" merely just his view of it.

TM said as much on GITP when he stated that his opinion won't sway others, nor will others opinion sway him.

We are not talking science here, or even complex mathematical modeling of various decision points.....we are talking about "someone's opinion" that is being conflated with "facts" and is being discussed all across the Internet. Rough DPS is Points Per Game....a crude measurement.

The warlock is very much like Alan Iverson, it does DPS, it scores, but it takes a lot of shots, will not pass the ball, and will likely never set up someone else, not this baseline version.

 

[Gammadoodler]

No but DPR is more akin to Points Per Game as a stat then Player Efficiency Rating.
To use an old reference, even a chucker like Alan Iverson can make a PPG stat line look falsely impressive (when your points equal shots taken, something is awry).

Treantmonk, to his disservice, has not embraced a spirit of inquiry, and acknowledged the valid concerns regarding how he has judge the relative weight of what he has taken to be evidence.
No, rather, TM has done the opposite. Treantmonk stated on The Giant's in the Playground, the video is "just his opinion" and other people can have differing opinions.

No one enjoys having flaws in their conceptual paradigms pointed out, but if one is interested in the truth, or as clear a view of something as possible, taking the lumps and leaning into trying to understand the critics is necessary.

Retreating into the line of "it is just my opinion", means he has stopped listening to others, and is not interested in "the truth" merely just his view of it.

TM said as much on GITP when he stated that his opinion won't sway others, nor will others opinion sway him.

We are not talking science here, or even complex mathematical modeling of various decision points.....we are talking about "someone's opinion" that is being conflated with "facts" and is being discussed all across the Internet. Rough DPS is Points Per Game....a crude measurement.

The warlock is very much like Alan Iverson, it does DPS, it scores, but it takes a lot of shots, will not pass the ball, and will likely never set up someone else, not this baseline version.

You can't be intellectually dishonest if you aren't trying to apply intellect..

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's the later.

That’s fair. But if you aren’t familiar with it, and the debates around it, I would highly suggest NOT just googling it and trying to make arguments to support your point of view. Because that would be ... well, typical of the internet. But not a great idea.

..... oh.

I gave you Player Efficiency Rating (John Hollingers universal stat for the NBA) and you dropped it, I presume because you're not too familiar with it.

Yes. Someone who just specifically referred to Shane Battier and Ricky Davis has no idea who John Hollinger is. Perhaps you can explain the Sloan Conference to me as well .

 

[renevq]

Wouldn’t DnD’s Three True Outcomes be nova damage, action denial or miss?