Winds of Fate needs to be tested in a non-D&D system.

[DSMatticus]

What I am pointing out is that any argument that includes "people cut down their own options" or "people don't make the most optimal decisions" doesn't make WoF better because it just forces you to do the same damn thing via die roll.

Then we aren't really talking about the same thing.

WoF does not exist to ensure every move is the optimal move. It has one sole purpose: to put a shit ton of abilities on your character sheet while simultaneously maintaing quick, meaningful decisions.

Giving someone 36 at-will abilities will blow their mind. Either they will take a very long time to decide, or they will take longer to decide and default to options they're comfortable with as opposed to looking at the situation. Either we're losing the meaningful part ("I'm choosing X because it's one of the few powers I can keep track of in my head"), or we're losing the quick part ("Here are my 36 abilities. Allow me to contemplate...").

Giving someone a random pick of 6 of those 36 at-will abilities will not blow their mind. Among that subset, they will make a meaningful decision in that they will evaluate each option. They will make a quick decision because your brain can handle 6 things at once very easily.

It's not about tactical depth. From the standpoint of a computer, having 36 options available at once is hugely more tactical depth than having 6 options at once. From the standpoint of a computer, there is also only one optimum move in either case. From the standpoint of a human being, 36 is a migraine and their brain can't process or appreciate the tactical depth you're offering them. And they probably can't do the intensive calculations that lead to an optimum move, so they are probably only in the neighborhood of optimum. 6, however, is an amount of tactical depth your brain can process and handle. And you're still usually uncertain about the optimum move, but having 6 options makes it easier to get closer to it.

[Kaelik]

Except for the hundredth time, that's actually completely wrong.

You can only think about six options or default if the options are not in any way classifiable.

If the options can be processed in categories, you can just make decisions based on categories. It doesn't matter if it's not 100% optimal, because of course, neither is Winds of Fate. So all that matters is you can make the decision just as fast, only in this case, it's actually a meaningful choice between more options.

Several people have pointed out several times the problems with your ideas about number of choices people can deal with is that they are based on the false assumption that all those choices are completely distinct, and cannot be processed by heuristics.

I have not seen any reason why people using heuristics and categories to manage their choices is worse than WoF. None. Lago once complained that people use heuristics to make choices that are not 100% optimal, but if the choices are still as good or better than the WoF choice, that's a non argument. No WoF proponent will give any reason why this is a problem other than that.

Additionally, the thing that WoF is supposed to represent, basically makes it stupid as shit to use for utility out of combat abilities. Paladins don't sometimes get to detect evil, they just sometimes aren't in position to smite. Taking 6 is fucking stupid as shit as a model of detect evil vs whatever else. It can be made less shitty by the use of Franks system for that one game, where you can spend one round doing X to auto choose your WoF result for the next round, which at least only means you have to take 2, which is easier to pretend is not stupid.

[RadiantPhoenix]

The problem I recall being brought up with heuristics that I agreed most strongly with, was that heuristics tend to generate the same results when the same heuristic is used several turns in a row with the same set of options available, or even just a similar set of options, and that this was less interesting than applying the heuristic to what is usually a different set of options each time.

[Previn]

The problem I recall being brought up with heuristics that I agreed most strongly with, was that heuristics tend to generate the same results when the same heuristic is used several turns in a row with the same set of options available, or even just a similar set of options, and that this was less interesting than applying the heuristic to what is usually a different set of options each time.

Well, yes, when all of the inputs are the same over and over heuristics will give you the same result over and over. That's what it's generally supposed to do.

I don't think the issue of someone spamming one ability over and over is a problem with heuristics (unless the person is an exceptionally poor thinker) as much as it is a problem with bad power/game design.

In example, if I build a charging barbarian in 3.x for example, I'm going to pretty try to charge every round just because that probably the only thing I can do, and it's definitely the most effective.

However, WoF's approach to this is to not let me charge, and force me to do something else. There is much vagueness on exactly how this would make say, my 3.x barbarian an effective combatant if I go from "charge for 10d8+130 damage" to "Attack once for 2d8+16." WoF doesn't actually add options that weren't there, it just forces me to do something different, and it's proponents assume that all of the abilities will magically be equal enough and easy to determine that it's better to use WoF, but that's not assured.

[RadiantPhoenix]

WoF doesn't add more options, it makes having more possibilities more manageable.

Your argument about combat effectiveness is completely missing the point; yes, having all the best options all the time makes you a more effective combatant, but in a well-designed game your choice would not between an M*N WoF matrix where your roll 1dM and the N best options from that matrix available all the time; your choice might, however, be between that WoF matrix and a set of N moves that are representative of that matrix, or between the N best options and getting to use moves from the M*N about M times more often (probably a bit less if M is large or significantly less if the variation in moves is small); using the M*N is still more interesting for most people, though, and games should be designed to be interesting.

[Previn]

WoF doesn't add more options, it makes having more possibilities more manageable.

Your argument about combat effectiveness is completely missing the point; yes, having all the best options all the time makes you a more effective combatant, but in a well-designed game your choice would not between an M*N WoF matrix where your roll 1dM and the N best options from that matrix available all the time; your choice might, however, be between that WoF matrix and a set of N moves that are representative of that matrix, or between the N best options and getting to use moves from the M*N about M times more often (probably a bit less if M is large or significantly less if the variation in moves is small); using the M*N is still more interesting for most people, though, and games should be designed to be interesting.

First, you are aware that you wrote 2 sentences there?

Second, you're missing my point. Dragging math into doesn't do anything because that has absolutely no bearing what so ever on my point: You can still completely screw up WoF with bad abilities so that it doesn't work either.

WoF doesn't solve bad ability design at all. Nothing about WoF suddenly makes you cable of writing good abilities for it if you couldn't before. WoF doesn't suddenly balance the abilities you're putting into it, nor does is assure that people will not spam a single ability from each roll over and over again (or stack their tables). It also doesn't assure that people won't have problems choosing between abilities, even if they have fewer choices.

Those are all problems that HAVE to be solved with designing good abilities and a good system, which again, WoF does not in anyway assure. I completely understand the concept behind WoF, I'm just completely not sold that it will do what it advertises.

[mean_liar]

Don't all the studies mentioned here deal with novel pathing decisions, not familiar ones or recognition times?
Did I miss the part where someone showed that those are applicable?

No, you did not. Those studies remain the fundamental underpinning of WoF.

A few things arise from (overly optimistic) conclusions drawn from those studies: the assumption that making non-optimal decisions is bad (despite what that implies about the available depth of system mastery), the assumption that 6-12 is the maximum number of meaningful choices (when the number is probably more like 12+ based on those studies), the assumption that all heuristics are inherently bad for play since they lead to static solutions (rather than attempt to address the static inputs generating those results). There are probably more.

I have not seen any reason why people using heuristics and categories to manage their choices is worse than WoF. None. Lago once complained that people use heuristics to make choices that are not 100% optimal, but if the choices are still as good or better than the WoF choice, that's a non argument. No WoF proponent will give any reason why this is a problem other than that.

Just tossing this out again since it bears repeating.

[DSMatticus]

If the options can be processed in categories, you can just make decisions based on categories. It doesn't matter if it's not 100% optimal

I've explained what this does. It breaks it into a series of smaller decisions. People will not restrict themself to a single category: combat is complex, so multiple categories will be completely viable options at the same time. It is not at all clear whether fireballing the mooks or save-or-sucking the boss is the better option, so people will evaluate multiple categories and compare. This ends up being faster than having a blob of 36 abilities, but it is not faster than a WoF matrix.

eval(36) > eval(6)*X + eval(X) > eval(6)
eval(36) is having a giant blob of abilities.
eval(6)*X+eval(X) is picking the best from X categories of 6 items, then picking the best of those bests. For X > 1, these inequalities hold. Yes, as soon as you evaluate two categories, you have become slower than WoF. More than twice as slow (but WoF is very fast, so being twice as slow may not be significant).
eval(6) is picking the best of your given WoF.

The difference between eval(6) and eval(6)*X+eval(X) depends largely on the value of X. If your combat is dynamic enough that it can support multiple categories being good options at once, then X will be large, and you will be significantly slower than a WoF matrix. If your combat makes the best option obvious every round ("the only good move here is AoE, forget everything else"), then your system is fast. This design would balance tradeoffs between complexity (how many types of move are worth considering) and speed. WoF can support every category being a good option at once, and retain speed.

Also, I really don't care about optimum moves. I'm completely fine with not having my optimum move every turn: every resource management system does that. Let's not talk about optimums like a system is good or bad because it occasionally prevents a global optimum, because you're right, the argument has nothing to do with optimums.

the assumption that making non-optimal decisions is bad

Not the issue, don't care. What I care about: are players having chances to consider all options, or are options getting ignored because heuristics are skipping them, and are decisions being made quickly?

6-12 is the maximum number of meaningful choices (when the number is probably more like 12+ based on those studies)

Those studies showed performance began degrading in the range of 6-12. They did not show that decision-making was impossible by 12, they merely showed that the average person's ability to make decisions was getting worse at that point. Your arbitrary number depends entirely on how much you want to flirt with option paralysis, but make absolutely no mistake: whatever that arbitrary number you choose is, at-will of 6x that arbitrary number is harder to do than WoF of 6x that number. So pick whatever number you like, and I'm completely willing to use that in a mathematical example just for you.

the assumption that all heuristics are inherently bad for play since they lead to static solutions

Heuristics are bad if they cause you to ignore abilities on your character sheet because your brain is incapable of processing them at the time. If that's the case, then there's really no point to having those abilities at all. This is what option paralysis does. It leads to comfort-zone defaulting, and that means some of the options on your character sheet will 'disappear' for extended periods of time.

You can still completely screw up WoF with bad abilities so that it doesn't work either.

Don't ask WoF to solve things it wasn't designed to do? WoF is designed to allow having bunches of good abilities at once and retain quick, thorough decision-making processes. It was not designed to ensure every ability is a good option. That is a completely separate design issue.

not sold that it will do what it advertises.

WoF is (or should be) advertised to allow a huge number of good character options on a character sheet while retaining speed of decision-making and (if you care about it) breaking up monotony of long combats. And that's the end of the story. The rest is just side-tracked discussion. WoF doesn't promise more good decisions, it allows more good decisions.

[Kaelik]

I've explained what this does. It breaks it into a series of smaller decisions. People will not restrict themself to a single category: combat is complex, so multiple categories will be completely viable options at the same time. It is not at all clear whether fireballing the mooks or save-or-sucking the boss is the better option, so people will evaluate multiple categories and compare.

Your argument against heuristics is that people won't use heuristics. If they compare between multiple categories, then they are not in fact using a heuristic (or they are using a heuristic, it's just one that allows for multiple categories to be looked at, because they are better at making decisions.)

Any argument that begins with the assumption that people using heuristics will be not use the heuristics is an argument that makes no sense.

[DSMatticus]

Applying heuristics to categories is difficult because they are abstract.

Here, let's run one by you: what's the average effectiveness of a CL 10 AoE? Of a CL 10 SoD? When you can answer that, people will be able to apply heuristics to choose categories. Until then, categories are abstract groupings with none of their own values, so deciding between two categories is deciding between two abstract things, and that is an uncomfortable task.

[Kaelik]

Applying heuristics to categories is difficult because they are abstract.

Here, let's run one by you: what's the average effectiveness of a CL 10 AoE? Of a CL 10 SoD? When you can answer that, people will be able to apply heuristics to choose categories. Until then, categories are abstract groupings with none of their own values, so deciding between two categories is deciding between two abstract things, and that is an uncomfortable task.

A heuristic is where you make decisions in trees, knowing in advance that you won't end with the absolute best result.

If I look at a situation and decide to use an AoE not a SoD, then find the best AoE, then compare that AoE against the best SoD, then I didn't use the heuristic that we are talking about, and the only reason I would use the more complex heuristic is because I think I can handle the more complex process.

Yes, I know multiple categories could provide something useful, but when I choose to AoE the minions instead of SoDing the boss, I'm choosing to use the best AoE even if the best SoD might have been "more optimal" because that's how the heuristic works.

Again, your argument boils down to "If they use process of elimination on an 18 digit multiple choice addition question with each choice having a different first digit, but then go back and do the problem over again from scratch afterword, then process of elimination isn't faster than doing the problem.

Well yes, but we can assume that they won't go back and do the problem, because that's what our psychology tells us.

[DSMatticus]

The actual difference between the two heuristics we're talking about is...

Heuristic you're referring to: Choose between an abstract grouping of things, select best from group. This is eval(x), and fast. It will suffer massively from buyer's remorse* and equivalent psychological problems ("that didn't go well, I should have done [something else] instead"). Every time they use this method, and something goes poorly (and remember: we are more apt to notice when things go poorly than when they go well), it encourages them to be more careful with their decisions afterwards. Yet if your system encourages the use of this heuristic, it depends on people not wanting to be careful with their decisions.

Heuristic I'm referring to: People break a large problem into several subproblems, and compare the results of the subproblems to find the answer to the whole problem. It is less prone to things like buyer's remorse, because people are evaluating all their options or all the options they had considered. This is eval(x)*y+eval(y), and fairly slow comparatively.

WoF: People just have one of the subproblems described above. This is eval(x) as well, but it too is less prone to things like buyer's remorse, because people are evaluating all options available to them.

Your heuristic says, "you should make sloppier decisions for the sake of speed, even though our set-up enables you to make thorough decisions without losing track." This is not only unenforcable, but human psychology suggests it's not likely to happen because we don't like robbing ourself of getting the best result we can.

*Buyer's remorse is completely the wrong term, but they're in the same class of things - decision regret.

[Kaelik]

Okay DM, so go tell Lago that he's 100% wrong and people don't use heuristics to make decisions and default. Because you just said that every time something doesn't work out perfectly, people decide their heuristic/default is wrong, and resort to checking every single thing next time.

So go argue with Lago about whether people actually use heuristics, and then people who actually make games can do that while you argue psychology with Lago, and we stop having giant threads that are a waste of everyone's time.

[Lago PARANOIA]

A heuristic is where you make decisions in trees, knowing in advance that you won't end with the absolute best result.

This is wrong. I mean it's in the ballpark, but it's a degree of error akin to mixing up electric force with magnetic force.

Okay DM, so go tell Lago that he's 100% wrong and people don't use heuristics to make decisions and default.

1) I disagree with DSMatticus's conclusion that people re-evaluate what went on. As I said earlier success in squad-level melee combat exists on a continuum, is obfuscated by the RNG, and has some margin for error in it. A shallow or suboptimal decision-making process isn't something that's immediately obvious or punished unlike, say, a game show or even a Chess match. Even if you do get someone to realize that they're doin it rong, people will have the attitude of 'good enough' or are afraid that they'll fuck it up even worse.

2) Heuristics are not inherently bad. If the decision making process is simple and/or thoroughly understood they're tremendously helpful i.e. you don't know what house in the neighborhood your friend lives in but you know it's a brick house with tulips in the front yard. So instead of knocking at 30 doors you knock at 4.

However I am extremely skeptical of peoples' abilities to consistently apply them to something as complex as squad-level melee combat without them fucking it up. Not to name names or anything, but I've yet to be dazzled by anyone's example heuristics on these threads. And of course if someone picked an overly reductive heuristic in the first place what makes you think they'll get it right the second or third time?

[MGuy]

What's to stop them from applying their heuristics in WoF?

[DSMatticus]

What's to stop them from applying their heuristics in WoF?

Heuristics aren't necessary in WoF, your brain handles small inputs just fine, and WoF does that. Or rather, the heuristics it uses will handle all inputs.

Heuristics are not the issue, and saying they are is a mistake. The issue is whether or not all options are being considered, by the player or by their heuristics, and what timeframe they can be considered in. This is a trade-off. If you want to evaluate every option and do it quickly, the list of options must be necessarily small. Ergo, WoF. Heuristics do not change this core argument.

Because you just said that every time something doesn't work out perfectly, people decide their heuristic/default is wrong, and resort to checking every single thing next time.

No, that's not what I meant, or said.

What I'm trying to convey is that your heuristic requires deliberate suboptimization. As in, it is cognitively obvious that it is not the way you would find the most optimal solution. Asking players to use that heuristic is asking them to be okay with making the 'wrong' decision more frequently, and that is bitter medicine. By contrast, I provided a heuristic that uses the same structure (categories of things), and does lead to the optimal solution more frequently (optimal based on the applier's limited ability to evaluate the use of any given ability, I mean).

But the real point of it is this: there are two heuristics here for the same situation. A bunch of abilities organized by categories. One is faster, but leads to bad decisions more frequently. One is slower, but leads to bad decisions less frequently. You have no way of ensuring someone uses either heuristic, let alone the heuristic you want them to. And if they realize the other heuristic (mine) exists, they're even less likely to want to use the one your system depends on. You can't enforce a way of thinking. Making it a necessity of playing the game is silly.

[MGuy]

Earlier it was explicitly said that heuristics were used before abilities were looked at. Also the assumption was that it doesn't mater what abilities you have but that you basically make your tactical decision based on the situation then look to use an ability.

If you're saying that having less abilities on the table means that people won't use heuristics then I still don't see how other systems don't do this. Having only a few abilities to begin with or not having all of your abilities available at a given time all reduce the number of abilities for you to think about. If your argument is that heuristics aren't necessary if you have less abilities to think about that I'd have to point out that this can occur in any resource management system. So then what makes WoF better?

[RadiantPhoenix]

WoF allows you to have more actual abilities yet still have less abilities to think about each round.

[Swordslinger]

WoF allows you to have more actual abilities yet still have less abilities to think about each round.

I really don't think it'll work that way. WoF forces more thinking, because you have to learn what your abilities are. At minimum, a player has to know six abilities instead of one.

[MGuy]

WoF allows you to have more actual abilities yet still have less abilities to think about each round.

As Sword said this is not true. You have to still know all of your abilities its just that from round to round you have to reevaluate them based on which ones are available because there's no consistency or guarantee between rounds which abilities will be available and which ones won't.

[Previn]

If you want to evaluate every option and do it quickly, the list of options must be necessarily small. Ergo, WoF. Heuristics do not change this core argument.

That's not true. A large set of options with significant differences can do the same thing when applying heuristics. If I have 60 abilities and I want an AoE, but only 6 are AoE, I can discard 54 without even having to compare of them.

You want to argue that a player will then go back and compare every one of those options, knowing they're going to be worse or completely not applicable, and that just does not happen unless you're dealing with idiots or people completely new to the system.

Seriously, if I see 20 orcs in a field, I don't compare stabbing one with a dagger (d4 damage lol), or hitting 1 with an Acid Arrow to dropping a Fireball on them. I sure as heck don't even bother trying to compare a Fireball to Tongues because that's just pants on head retarded.

[mean_liar]

But that is a hueristic, ergo you are not having fun and the game is bad.

[Username17]

Don't all the studies mentioned here deal with novel pathing decisions, not familiar ones or recognition times?
Did I miss the part where someone showed that those are applicable?

We also talked about candy selection studies. I'm pretty sure most people involved were familiar with chocolate and lollipops.

WoF allows you to have more actual abilities yet still have less abilities to think about each round.

As Sword said this is not true. You have to still know all of your abilities its just that from round to round you have to reevaluate them based on which ones are available because there's no consistency or guarantee between rounds which abilities will be available and which ones won't.

Oh for fuck's sake. The fact that you have to evaluate all your abilities each turn is the entire point. You almost have a real point, which is that the limits of players' abilities to become familiar with large numbers of abilities individually is also going to be a separate limit and WoF does not address that at all.

But people familiarize themselves with the contents of the candy store much more easily than they make choices from lists. 36 total abilities does not seriously threaten any cognitive limits, because it's up against the "Candy Catalog" limits instead of the "Choosing Desert" limits.

-Username17

[MGuy]

WoF doesn't allow you to evaluate your choices any better than any other resource management system. Its already been said these systems cut your choices. You are already going to be evaluating less than your entire list of choices. WoF doesn't make it any easier.

[DSMatticus]

I really don't think it'll work that way. WoF forces more thinking, because you have to learn what your abilities are. At minimum, a player has to know six abilities instead of one.

... Wat?

Okay, you're right. People can only know one ability. We should seriously design systems where fighters have one attack, wizards have one spell, clerics have one heal, bards have one buff... </sarcasm> There is a cognitive limit to how much you are able to remember. It is not fucking 6, or 36. 3e wizards seriously have like 20+ abilities on their character sheet. 4e characters have 10+. As Frank put it, this is an entirely separate issue and a separate magic number (and that number is a lot fucking larger). This has nothing to do with WoF.

As Sword said this is not true. You have to still know all of your abilities its just that from round to round you have to reevaluate them based on which ones are available because there's no consistency or guarantee between rounds which abilities will be available and which ones won't.

Sword said something very stupid. Memory recall is an entirely separate mental task from decision evaluation. This is wasted discussion.

If I have 60 abilities and I want an AoE, but only 6 are AoE, I can discard 54 without even having to compare of them.

Kaelik and I have been discussing this.

Seriously, if I see 20 orcs in a field

Yes, if you pick a situation with no tactical depth, your tactical decisions are trivially easy to make. Here's a situation with some tactical decisions that totally ruins your (not so) brilliant ideas.

You are travelling a road that leads between two hills. Over the crest of the left hill, 10 orcs come charging at you, lead by a massive ogre swinging a great club. Over the crest of the right hill, 6 orcs riding wargs do the same.

Valid moves: AoE the left, maybe the right. SoD the boss (ogre), maybe a group SoD on the wargs. Wall either left or right to temporarily break the fight in half. Terrain control either the left or right for similar reasons.

Your categorical heuristic breaks down because it's now grabbing multiple categories at once, and any speed benefits you have over WoF are completely lost. Kaelik and I discussed the case where you choose by category first anyway, but I explained why that's a bad idea: 1) it's an inferior heuristic, more likely to lead to bad decisions, and people will know this. Asking them to use this heuristic is asking them to suboptimize, 2) you can't enforce using heuristics inside people's heads. If the quick gameplay of your system depends on everyone playing a certain way, lol.

I don't compare stabbing one with a dagger (d4 damage lol), or hitting 1 with an Acid Arrow

Yes, when you combine no tactical depth with strictly inferior decisions (why would you ever not use fireball instead of dagger or acid arrow?), decisions happen fast. Fortunately, WoF is meant to support more tactical depth than your situation has, and lots more good character options than the ones you offered, so WoF does not break down when you have lots of things going on and lots of options on your character sheet. Yay.

WoF doesn't allow you to evaluate your choices any better than any other resource management system. Its already been said these systems cut your choices. You are already going to be evaluating less than your entire list of choices. WoF doesn't make it any easier.

This is no point at all. "WoF does the same thing other resource management systems do. But it's bad. I hate it." Also, there are things WoF does better. It just flat out does them better. Here they are.

1: Encourages variety. This may or may not matter to you. I don't care if it matters to you, it is just a factual statement.
2: Allows more equivalently good abilities. E.g.: Vancian magic really only has 4-8 good abilities at a time, your highest level spells. WoF can have a huge number, up to however big you want your matrices to be. This probably should matter to you.
3: Allows players to consider all available options at a time. This may or may not matter to you. I don't care if it matters to you, it is just a factual statement.