Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 5468885" data-attributes="member: 23094">I understand the math that is being shown; it, however, has more than just a slight tinge of "lies, damn lies and statistics" about it.The comparison is so facile as to be meaningless.Specifically, this, and the fact that it is, at best, only sideways applicable to skill challenges.Consider a 6-successes-before-3-failures skill check (which, BTW, isn't supposed to be an easy thing for the party to pull off).The universe of successful results are, as Nagol states:... or, more simply, the total number of unique, successful combinations is the sum of:No Failures: 6 choose 61 Failure: 7 choose 6 - 6 choose 62 Failures: 8 choose 6 - 7 choose 6And the specific odds for any given combination coming up are pretty easy to calculate (e.g., an 8 choose 6 combination has a [Chance of Success]^6 * [Chance of Failure]^2 probability of occuring, and there are 21 unique 8 choose 6 combinations).All this goes by way of saying that Nagol's second, corrected chart, is actually correct.[sblock]Further explanation:There is one 6 choose 6 success - 6 successes in a row.SSSSSSThere are actually seven 7 choose 6 success:FSSSSSSSFSSSSSSSFSSSSSSSFSSSSSSSFSSSSSSSFSSSSSSSFHowever, the bolded one is the same as the 6 choose 6 success, and therefore is discarded.  Thus, the total number of unique 7 choose 6 successes is 7 choose 6 - 6 choose 6.You can also do this with counting failures, which are 3 choose 3, 4 choose 3, etc., up to 8 choose 3.[/sblock]However, even that doesn't really tell the whole story, because, just like in combat encounter design, you don't just look at "Total Monster HP / [Fighter Damage per Attack * Fighter Attacks per Round]" and say, "Yep, this combat will last 7 rounds."It ignores the possibility for players to choose mechanically optimal actions - e.g., doing things like making secondary skill rolls, or using powers to gain automatic successes, or even tailoring their approach to highlight their own strengths and the weaknesses of the particular skill challenge.In other words, this is, at best, an entry level tool, and presenting it as some sort of revelation is, at best, misleading.And, again, it ignores the capability of players to change their approach midstream, just like in a combat scenario, players can elect to reposition themselves, close a door, expend additional spells, fight defensively, etc.If a negotiation is resolved as a single die roll and some aid another attempts, then the players all make their rolls simultaneously (probably at the end), and the main roller rolls, and ... the end!  Either they succeed or they fail.  There is no opportunity to say, "Hmm - we started arguing with the Noble using tactic A, and he isn't buying it; maybe we should mention B, too?"  At that point in the one-die-roll method, it's too late.</blockquote>

Verification