Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7000934">Yes.&nbsp; Not at all the kind of situation I'm describing.Cool, so even the 1 in 1,000 sort of lie detecting savant (I haven't read the actual research so I'll take it on face value) only has an 80% chance of success.&nbsp; Totally confirms why this system makes sense.Ok, I wasn't specific enough about the scenario.&nbsp; I was thinking of the movie version, where you've got 7 seconds to decide, and no time to work through the schematic.&nbsp; As long as everybody understands the rule then a roll that beats the DC is not succeeding. Yet.&nbsp; Ah, now I see what you are saying.&nbsp; Yes the person who is more likely to succeed is therefore also more likely to be wrong.&nbsp; The easiest way to demonstrate that is by pointing out that the guy with no chance to succeed has no chance to get the wrong answer; at worst he will get no answer.I referred to this earlier; ideally I would like a failing roll to also have the possibility of becoming a false answer, but I don't see how that's possible if the player is allowed to roll their own dice, which was one of my design goals.At the same time, while this result is counterintuitive I don't think it really affects gameplay.&nbsp; While those with higher skill are more likely to get an incorrect answer because they succeed more, the proportion of their successes which are false successes will be lower.&nbsp; It's the absence of the &quot;false failures&quot; that makes it look wonky, but it doesn't create an incentive to keep your skill low, or not attempt things.&nbsp; It's sort of analogous (philosophically if not mathematically) to saying that Mitt Romney pays less income tax than his secretary.&nbsp; No, he pays several orders of magnitude more tax; it's his tax rate that's lower.OK, here I thought you were saying that the DM would have to provide the information that leads to the incorrect conclusion.&nbsp; I.e., &quot;the guard is visibly sweating.&quot;&nbsp; But maybe you're just saying that if the correct answer is 42, the DM is going to have to pick a different, false number to provide.Can you give me a more complex scenario?&nbsp; The scenarios I'm thinking of have discrete and obvious options: if the answer is &quot;snip the red wire&quot; then the false success is &quot;snip the blue wire&quot;.&nbsp; If the answer is &quot;take the left passage&quot; then the false success is &quot;take the right passage&quot;.&nbsp; I suppose if there are more wires or passages then the DM will have to pick one, but that shouldn't be too taxing.Also, let me repeat again that I'm proposing this only for specific scenarios, where the character would be going off of intuition or hunch, not hard knowledge.&nbsp; If the player is rolling History to remember the nickname of a long-dead Archduke then I probably wouldn't invoke this rule, so I wouldn't need an incorrect nickname queued up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7000934"] Yes. Not at all the kind of situation I'm describing. Cool, so even the 1 in 1,000 sort of lie detecting savant (I haven't read the actual research so I'll take it on face value) only has an 80% chance of success. Totally confirms why this system makes sense. Ok, I wasn't specific enough about the scenario. I was thinking of the movie version, where you've got 7 seconds to decide, and no time to work through the schematic. As long as everybody understands the rule then a roll that beats the DC is not succeeding. Yet. Ah, now I see what you are saying. Yes the person who is more likely to succeed is therefore also more likely to be wrong. The easiest way to demonstrate that is by pointing out that the guy with no chance to succeed has no chance to get the wrong answer; at worst he will get no answer. I referred to this earlier; ideally I would like a failing roll to also have the possibility of becoming a false answer, but I don't see how that's possible if the player is allowed to roll their own dice, which was one of my design goals. At the same time, while this result is counterintuitive I don't think it really affects gameplay. While those with higher skill are more likely to get an incorrect answer because they succeed more, the proportion of their successes which are false successes will be lower. It's the absence of the "false failures" that makes it look wonky, but it doesn't create an incentive to keep your skill low, or not attempt things. It's sort of analogous (philosophically if not mathematically) to saying that Mitt Romney pays less income tax than his secretary. No, he pays several orders of magnitude more tax; it's his tax [I]rate[/I] that's lower. OK, here I thought you were saying that the DM would have to provide the information that leads to the incorrect conclusion. I.e., "the guard is visibly sweating." But maybe you're just saying that if the correct answer is 42, the DM is going to have to pick a different, false number to provide. Can you give me a more complex scenario? The scenarios I'm thinking of have discrete and obvious options: if the answer is "snip the red wire" then the false success is "snip the blue wire". If the answer is "take the left passage" then the false success is "take the right passage". I suppose if there are more wires or passages then the DM will have to pick one, but that shouldn't be too taxing. Also, let me repeat again that I'm proposing this only for specific scenarios, where the character would be going off of intuition or hunch, not hard knowledge. If the player is rolling History to remember the nickname of a long-dead Archduke then I probably wouldn't invoke this rule, so I wouldn't need an incorrect nickname queued up. [/QUOTE]

Verification