Worlds of Design: Always Tell Me the Odds

If GMs (and game designers, and gamers) understand “the odds” they will be able to make better choices and understand why some things happen in their games - and some don’t.

If GMs (and game designers, and gamers) understand “the odds” they will be able to make better choices and understand why some things happen in their games - and some don’t.

diceluck.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
Never tell me the odds!
--Han Solo (Star Wars)​

Most people don't understand odds and randomness in the most simple dimensions, especially when you're talking about dynamic odds.
--Keith S. Whyte. Executive Director. National Council on Problem Gambling​

We often hear about “the percentages” and “the odds” in sports. For example, the odds for the home team winning (regular season: NBA 59.9%, NFL 57.1, NHL 55.1, MLB 54.0, MLS soccer (where there are draws) home win ratio of 49.4 percent over a 15 year period, compared to just 26.5 percent away wins). Though game design does not require higher math, game designers need to know simple arithmetic and probability. There are some odds we can talk about in RPGs, as well, and about how people react to those odds.

The notion that it can be a "fair fight" in an RPG? 50/50? Nope.

How much is a fight biased toward the adventurers? Let’s consider the NCAA Basketball tournament. Let’s say that a team is so good, it can win 90% of its games against the better teams, the ones in the tournament. This is unlikely: how many teams have a season record as good as 27-3 (90%) though they’re playing weak as well as strong teams? When you’re playing the stronger teams, 90% is quite unlikely. But let’s use that anyway.

So what are the chances of winning the tournament (six games in a row) even with that 90% (beyond-likelihood) capability?

90%​
win 1 in a row​
81.00%​
win 2 in a row​
72.90%​
win 3 in a row​
65.61%​
win 4 in a row​
59.05%​
win 5 in a row​
53.14%​
win 6 in a row​

Even that most unlikely team that can win 90% of games against tournament-quality opposition, only has a 53.14% chance of winning the tournament. Even a team with a 99% win likelihood wins the six-game tournament only 94.15% of the time (“fail on a roll of 1 on d20").

(How is this calculated? You multiply, you don't add. So to win three games in a row, it’s 90% times 90% times 90%.)

This is why the “best team” often fails to win the tournament. This is why some pro sports play seven-game playoff series, in the hope that luck “evens out” and the better team will win.

Translate This into RPGs

Extrapolate that into RPG sessions with perhaps one big battle per session, or maybe more! Practically speaking, either you need really astute players willing to run away from almost any encounter, in order to avoid taking chances, or you need to arrange a huge bias in favor of the players in a typical encounter. Or they're going to lose and possibly die pretty soon.

Go back to the tournament example. If the players are 90% likely to win, after six encounters there will be around a 47% chance that they will have lost one of those encounters.

The whole notion of RPG combat as "sport", as something that's "fair", is nonsense in light of these calculations.

Playing Styles

Some play for "the rush", for glory, and like Han Solo don't want to know the odds before they do something. If you accommodate them, then the bias in favor of the players must be even greater, or you'll have dead characters in no time. (This brings up the question of "fudging" dice rolls in favor of characters, which I may address another time. Some GMs do it routinely, others never.)

Is it fun to play to survive, to “win”, instead of for glory? Depends on the person. It is for me, when I expand it to include survival for the entire group, not just my character(s). In contrast, in the late 70s I played in a game that was supposed to act as the stimulus for someone to write a story. I tried to do something "heroic". My character got dead.

Many gamers don't understand probability, and so over- (or under-) estimate their chances of success. Some don't understand the scope of the chances. 1 in a thousand vs 1 in a million is a massive difference, but people often don't see it that way. It's yet another case of perception not matching reality.

That's where we get those who don't understand odds, who think that anything (no matter how outlandish) ought to be possible once in 20 (a 20 on a d20) or at worst once in a hundred (100 on percentage dice). No, the chance of most anything happening in a given situation are astronomically against. (And "astronomically" is practically the same as "impossible".)

Recently I talked with a gamer who is very skeptical of probabilities, but doesn't understand them. He thought it was terribly unlikely that a player could roll five dice in a row and get at least a 4 on every roll. The chances, 50% to the fifth power, amount to better than 3%. For some reason he thought that rolling the dice successively rather than altogether made a difference - nope, what's come before has no bearing on what comes after, in odds. And what about five 1's in a row? That's 16.66% (a 1 on a d6) to the fifth, .000129 or .0129%. One tenth of one percent (one chance in a thousand) is .01%. So slightly better than one chance in a thousand. Rolling seven 1's in a row is about 3.5 chances in a million. Or perhaps more easily, rolling a 1 on every one of six 10-sided dice is a one-in-a-million chance.

To summarize: For designers, fudging the dice (or the quality of the opposition) is inevitable. For players, it helps to understand probabilities in games

Reference: James Ernest (Cheapass Games) - Probability for Game Designers | League of Gamemakers
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Hussar

Legend
Is it not also pretty antagonistic to assume that DM ego is going to be a regular barrier to service? I'm not sure that's any more likely or common than the powergaming comment you're responding to, and that example is actually really common. Generally speaking, someone who is going to analyze the math underlying a class is doing so to see how 'powerful' it is. That's my experience anyway. Some of those people aren't making choices based on that power level (like you), but lots are.

I'll say this though. Anyone who writes a class and puts it into play without playtesting is definitely asking for trouble, one way or another.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. Ego on either side of the screen is a problem. If someone isn't very good at math, then, well, maybe homebrewing a class is a bad idea. But, if someone isn't very good at math AND they refuse to accept other people doing the math for them, well, that's just a recipe for disaster.

The whole point of analyzing the math is to determine if something is balanced or not.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. Ego on either side of the screen is a problem. If someone isn't very good at math, then, well, maybe homebrewing a class is a bad idea. But, if someone isn't very good at math AND they refuse to accept other people doing the math for them, well, that's just a recipe for disaster.

The whole point of analyzing the math is to determine if something is balanced or not.
That's fair, I wasn't quite sure from your post if that was the goal. My point about a certain kind of 'math-y' player stands though, some of those guys are all about optimization, and their critique of a homebrew class is going to be colored by their preoccupation with white room stats crunching and what the 'best' option is. We all know a guy or two like that.
 

Hussar

Legend
That's fair, I wasn't quite sure from your post if that was the goal. My point about a certain kind of 'math-y' player stands though, some of those guys are all about optimization, and their critique of a homebrew class is going to be colored by their preoccupation with white room stats crunching and what the 'best' option is. We all know a guy or two like that.

Oh, for sure. Honestly, the best solution I've found is, if you have to talk to your DM about the math of the game, spend some time actually gathering data from the game. If you think this character is over or under powered, either way, track it for a couple of sessions. That way you can show, rather than tell, which, as you say, tends to run into white room theory crafting territory.
 

pnewman

Adventurer
The reward in a game MUST reflect the risk. And this is something that you see over and over again that DM's just don't grasp.

No, the risk should reflect the plausible risk. Robbing a (US) bank is harder than it was 80 years ago. Not getting caught after you leave is also harder. The reward from doing so is less than it was 80 years ago because cash is not as important as it used to be (and maybe because inflation has made "as much cash as you can even carry" have less value).

This does not mean that the GM of a bank robbing game set in 2020 is being unfair compared to the GM of a bank robbing game set in 1940. It means the world has changed.
 

Hussar

Legend
No, the risk should reflect the plausible risk. Robbing a (US) bank is harder than it was 80 years ago. Not getting caught after you leave is also harder. The reward from doing so is less than it was 80 years ago because cash is not as important as it used to be (and maybe because inflation has made "as much cash as you can even carry" have less value).

This does not mean that the GM of a bank robbing game set in 2020 is being unfair compared to the GM of a bank robbing game set in 1940. It means the world has changed.

To be fair here, you are presenting an entire game, whereas I'm talking about a single element.

But, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. If the reward of a random function of the game (note, this isn't really your example since you could play a bank robbing game with zero random functions) is less than the risk for attempting that random function, then any rational player will not take that risk unless forced to.

Your character has a magic weapon. 33% of the time, it will instantly kill anything you hit with it. But, 66% of the time, it will backfire and instantly kill your character. Would you use it? Of course not. There are all sorts of other means of killing an enemy, that carry far, far less than a 2 in 3 chance of your character dying.

The problem is, many people have very poor senses when it comes to calculating odds and many DM's don't want to make it "too easy".
 

aramis erak

Legend
Your character has a magic weapon. 33% of the time, it will instantly kill anything you hit with it. But, 66% of the time, it will backfire and instantly kill your character. Would you use it? Of course not. There are all sorts of other means of killing an enemy, that carry far, far less than a 2 in 3 chance of your character dying.
To be fair, whether or not you'd know is more important than the actual odds. If you have no way of knowing the odds, but just know it's a magic sword, you use it when you think you need a magic sword... it's your buddies who have a chance of knowing... after you off yourself.

Also to be fair, such a magic item is a Gygaxian F*-the-players d*-move, and it's inclusion in game is grounds for sane players to vote the GM out... it's the kind of thing that, when it happens in the game, it's time to find a new group.

Mr. Newman's assertion boils down to "you can't judge difficulties for historic or fantasy based upon current difficulties, because the paradigms and tech are quite different." If I understand his argument correctly (and I've gamed with him for many years, and been friends for many more), if the GM and/or system doesn't give you a set of odds, you can't make an informed decision on whether to do the think.

For example, the risks of Malaria are, while still potentially lethal, for a US citizen, treatment is readily available and fairly cheap... but for an African in one of the jungles, even the needed supportive care is expensive and hard to get, let alone the drugs to fight it. So, if the adventure is set in "The Great Malarial Swamp," the average american isn't going to understand the risks, unless the game is a moderns. before the 19th C, malaria was a killer. Even into the early 20th, it carried strong risks of death for those who got it... much more survivable now. Most first world people don't realize just how deadly it was. Or, in Africa, still is.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
No, the risk should reflect the plausible risk. Robbing a (US) bank is harder than it was 80 years ago. Not getting caught after you leave is also harder. The reward from doing so is less than it was 80 years ago because cash is not as important as it used to be (and maybe because inflation has made "as much cash as you can even carry" have less value).

This does not mean that the GM of a bank robbing game set in 2020 is being unfair compared to the GM of a bank robbing game set in 1940. It means the world has changed.
This gives a narrative reply to a statistical concern. Until you start talking the same language, expect to remain baffled by each other's position.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top