Dragonbane general thread

[Bill Zebub]

sure, if you get a skill point, you increase your chance of winning.

The question is more if Orange already has too high a chance to begin with, because they are favored by the rules

Again, when the skill was the same they had equal chances of winning. When Blue gets a point they get new ways of winning, but Orange does not.

So how can Orange have "too high of a chance of winning"?

EDIT: Another way of saying it is that the only thing that changes for Orange is that the description of some of their wins changes. From "Orange succeeded and Blue failed" to "Both succeeded and Orange rolled lower." But the number of ways they can win hasn't changed.

And I guess that's what I'm saying: the issue people seem to have is with how some wins are described, but it's not relevant.

 

[mamba]

So how can Orange have "too high of a chance of winning"?

like this

And, yes, Orange gets 9 new cells where they win with the lower roll even though the other succeeds, whereas previously they each had an equal number, so technically "if both succeed, it is more likely that Orange wins".

did a bit of programmatic analysis...
with "a" having skill 7, and "b" having 17...
HW a= 42 b= 312 t= 7 both f= 39
LW a= 112 b= 242 t= 7 both f= 39
Note that high wins vs low wins is a significant change.
Low wins means low will win roughly 1/4 of the time, instead of 1/10th, given the 7 vs 17.
lets see an 8 vs 13
HW a= 84 b= 224 t= 8 f= 84
LW a= 124 b= 184 t= 8 f= 84
That's still pretty profound.

 

[overgeeked]

Exactly so. Post 141 by aramis pretty definitively showed there’s a significant mathematical difference between low-roll wins and high-roll wins.

Dragonbane general thread

did a bit of programmatic analysis... with "a" having skill 7, and "b" having 17... HW a= 42 b= 312 t= 7 both f= 39 LW a= 112 b= 242 t= 7 both f= 39 Note that high wins vs low wins is a significant change. Low wins means low will win roughly 1/4 of the time, instead...

www.enworld.org

 

[Bill Zebub]

Exactly so. Post 141 by aramis pretty definitively showed there’s a significant mathematical difference between low-roll wins and high-roll wins.

Dragonbane general thread

did a bit of programmatic analysis... with "a" having skill 7, and "b" having 17... HW a= 42 b= 312 t= 7 both f= 39 LW a= 112 b= 242 t= 7 both f= 39 Note that high wins vs low wins is a significant change. Low wins means low will win roughly 1/4 of the time, instead...

www.enworld.org

Oh, I see. I have been conflating two criticisms. Earlier in the thread somebody said they didn't like that "When both succeed, the one with the lower skill is more likely to win."

That is different from, "The one with the higher skill doesn't win enough."

The first can definitely be written off as irrelevant.

The second is...opinion. Should 17 skill beat 7 skill 90% of the time, or 75% of the time? Damned if I know. That's sort of like asking how much more powerful a level 17 character "should be" compared to a level 7.

 

[Wolfpack48]

So here's a little puzzle using the Weakness system that came up in our last session. One of our players' characters has a Weakness of "Gullible," and another has "Overbearing." The Gullble character was "convinced" by a story that the rest of the party thought was dangerous if she decided to pursue it. Even so, the Gullible character was willing to follow the story and take the consequences (both for the skill check, and for the RPing fun). The Overbearing character stepped in and followed the story instead to "protect" the Gullible character (and get his skill check). What happened with the story isn't really important.

How would you rule on the experience checks here? I'll tell you what we did after, and talk a little more, but I'd be curious to hear thoughts first.

For reference, the rule on p. 29 of the book reads:

At the end of the game session, the GM asks you the following questions about the session you just completed. For each question that you can reply “yes” to, and justify your answer, you may place another advancement mark next to an unmarked skill of your choice. The GM has the final word, but should adopt a permissive attitude.

• Did you participate in the game session?
• Did you explore a new location?
• Did you defeat one or more dangerous adversaries?
• Did you overcome an obstacle without using force?
• Did you give in to your weakness (optional rule)

 

[overgeeked]

So the low-roll wins vs high-roll wins conversation doesn't balloon again and take over the thread here's a dedicated thread for just that.

Math on low-roll wins vs blackjack...

This is a thread for hashing out the math on low-roll wins vs blackjack-style highest roll without going over wins. ENWorlders with better maths knowledge than me, please explain this to the rest of us.

www.enworld.org

 

[overgeeked]

So here's a little puzzle using the Weakness system that came up in our last session. One of our players' characters has a Weakness of "Gullible," and another has "Overbearing." The Gullble character was "convinced" by a story that the rest of the party thought was dangerous if she decided to pursue it. Even so, the Gullible character was willing to follow the story and take the consequences (both for the skill check, and for the RPing fun). The Overbearing character stepped in and followed the story instead to "protect" the Gullible character (and get his skill check).

How would you rule on the experience checks here? I'll tell you what we did after, and talk a little more, but I'd be curious to hear thoughts first.

I'm not sure what the puzzle is here. I guess I'm just more relaxed and permissive about things like that. At most I'd maybe ask the Overbearing character how that was overbearing. It's not hard to see that as overbearing, but I'd want to be sure it was RPed in the moment. Something as simple as "I'm going with Gullible, and so are you." Works for me.

The PCs can get maybe five potential advancement marks from the checklist, six if you're using the overcome weakness optional rule. And none of them are particularly difficult bars to achieve. Did you play? Did you beat a dangerous foe? Did you defeat a challenge without using force? Did you explore a new place? Did you RP your weakness?

If they were guaranteed advancements in five skills, sure. I could see being a bit more restrictive with it. But it's five attempts to advance. Unless they're incredibly lucky and smart about it, they're not going to advance all five skills.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I'm not sure what the puzzle is here. I guess I'm just more relaxed and permissive about things like that. At most I'd maybe ask the Overbearing character how that was overbearing. It's not hard to see that as overbearing, but I'd want to be sure it was RPed in the moment. Something as simple as "I'm going with Gullible, and so are you." Works for me.

The PCs can get maybe five potential advancement marks from the checklist, six if you're using the overcome weakness optional rule. And none of them are particularly difficult bars to achieve. Did you play? Did you beat a dangerous foe? Did you defeat a challenge without using force? Did you explore a new place? Did you RP your weakness?

If they were guaranteed advancements in five skills, sure. I could see being a bit more restrictive with it. But it's five attempts to advance. Unless they're incredibly lucky and smart about it, they're not going to advance all five skills.

Not worried about being too permissive or restrictive, the checks aren't really the point (sorry I should have phrased the question better - "what do you think of that Weakness dynamic?" would have been better). Just curious to hear folks' thoughts on that particular rule and the specific Gullible/Overbearing dynamic. I'll tell more shortly.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

If the question is can the gullible person forgo the hook when the overbearing person bullies them to not follow the hook, then yes I'd allow both to get credit for a weakness if they roleplay it.

 

[mamba]

Gullible: yes, Overbearing: somewhat questionable, up to you