Artorius: Those who desire old age need not apply

[Elennsar]

The fact of the matter is, the bows of the era and place don't kill people in mail very well even without cover, nor do they have a very good range.

And a hail of arrows...requires good, steady, skilled bowmen in fairly good numbers.

Shields definately help, but even without one, many things point against death by bow being something to be greatly worried about.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Wizard: Depending on your definition of superior and inferior (this is still unformed as a system, so whether being a good tactician counts as more important than being good at one of the other things besides tactics is impossible to answer until those are sorted out, so bear in mind this is provisional)

These don't add up to 100%...some campaigns will push for the gold (and face harder opponents more but less fights if they can make this work), and that's not neccessarily invalid.

You will probably run into between 50-70% inferior opponents, though usually not significantly inferior mechanically.

You will probably run into 20-40% equals.

You will probably run into 10% superior opponents (but within the range you can beat).

You will probably not run into opponents much greater than you.

What are the odds of winning in each of those scenarios, given that the PCs will probably have disciplined cavalry or the like more often than the NPCs, and that both sides are equally likely to have greatly superior tactics, and given that the PCs are of average competence in their decision making?

Somewhere between 30% and 100%, depending on what scenario.

Some scenarios are harder than others. Some are easier.

My ideal campaign would be that you should be able to survive the campaign.

Stop looking for "40%" and start looking at "NPCs come up with plans too.", instead of just being DCs to beat.

I think Martin and I are looking for about the same thing: some basis to come up with an "average" chance of winning a combat against an unknown opponent, assuming average "tactical intelligence" from the PCs.

For the record, I wasn't talking about my definitions of "superior," "inferior," etc.; I was talking about yours from earlier in this thread.

So I'm going to try to estimate some average odds of victory for each kind of encounter (realizing that there will be some variability within each "encounter level").

I'll assume that there's less variability among the "equal" encounters, which average a 50% chance of victory, and more variability among the superior and inferior encounters. So I'll go with the victory chance in an average encounter ranging from 40% to 60%.

Inferior encounters have a maximum victory chance of 90%, so I'll assume a 75% average (halfway between 60% and 90%).

Superior encounters have a minimum victory chance of 10% (or maximum loss chance of 90%). So I'll assume the average victory chance against a superior encounter is 25% (halfway between 10% and 40%).

Using the middle values in your ranges of opponent frequency and the assumption of about 40 combats per campaign, we get the following results:

60% of 40 gives you 24 inferior opponents. 0.75˄24 = 0.001003391, or just over 0.1% chance of beating all the "inferior" opponents in the campaign.

30% of 40 gives you 12 equal opponents. 0.5˄12 = 0.000244141, or 0.02% chance of beating all the equal opponents.

10% of 40 gives you 4 superior opponents. 0.25˄4 = 00390625, or about 0.4% chance of beating all superior opponents.

Calculating a weighted average of the probabilities gives me 0.75 * 0.6 + 0.5 * 0.3 + 0. 25 * 0.1 = 0.625, or a 62.5% chance of winning the "average" combat (not knowing the type of opposition). 0,625˄40 gives a result of 0.000000007, or virtually no chance of winning all 40 encounters unless the PCs are brilliant tacticians and the dice are on their side. That's assuming I did the math right. Somebody please tell me if I did the weighted averages wrong because I'm not 100% sure of what I'm doing in that department.

Of course, as covered in the heroic surges thread, this is workable as long as losing doesn't mean dying. In fact, looking at these numbers, it's probably best if losing *almost never* means death for the PCs. Of course, in the proposed quasi-Arthurian setting, it's always possible that most adversaries in the campaign follow some kind of Code of War which dictates that captives be ransomed.

Note, this doesn't mean that PCs can't die in battle. It is imperative that a loss doesn't mean a TPK in the vast majority of circumstances, though.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

You'd want to make the benefit of cover automatic, not percentage, however, so as to emphasize that it's Just Not Going To Happen.

You'd probably want something like a fixed DR, with the value varying based on the kind of cover (shield vs. battlement), but pretty high in relation to the expected damage from whatever system the game ends up using.

[MartinHarper]

I am in favour of (non-mindless) NPCs coming up with plans and executing them, both within fights, and between fights. I'm not really interested in discussing that, because it's obviously good, everyone here knows that, and I already do my best to incorporate that when I DM.

Somewhere between 30% and 100%, depending on what scenario.

Some scenarios are harder than others. Some are easier.

I'm confused. If there's a 100% chance of victory, how is that a "fight of consequence" where there is "meaningful opposition"?

[Elennsar]

I think Martin and I are looking for about the same thing: some basis to come up with an "average" chance of winning a combat against an unknown opponent, assuming average "tactical intelligence" from the PCs.

Since if you have a modicum of common sense (IC), you try to find out what you're facing -before- facing it, rather than sprinting in and assuming that an unknown opponent is a ____ bet. (____ being anywhere from "sucker's" to "risk free")

For the record, I wasn't talking about my definitions of "superior," "inferior," etc.; I was talking about yours from earlier in this thread.

I know. But having an opponent who is superior at one thing may be more threatening than one who is superior at another thing...this is not "roll (dice), compare to difficulty.", with superior meaning "bigger than you all over".

A guy who is substantially stronger is not necessarily a harder enemy than the guy who is a savvier tactician, or easier (that requires writing the system to work out...both are meant to be threatening)

So depending on which kind of superior you face, that particular encounter may be something you can flip around or not.

...virtually no chance of winning all 40 encounters unless the PCs are brilliant tacticians and the dice are on their side.

Once again, we assume something to the effect of "roll (X)+ on the d20" and that sums up the odds.

Combat. Is. Not. That. Bleeping. Simple.

Of course, in the proposed quasi-Arthurian setting, it's always possible that most adversaries in the campaign follow some kind of Code of War which dictates that captives be ransomed.

Please reread about this being more Dux Artorius fighting the Saxon invaders and less King Arthur's Knights dueling for any reason or none.

Just want to ensure that's cleared up.

In fact, looking at these numbers, it's probably best if losing *almost never* means death for the PCs.

Losing a fight may or may not kill you. Winning a fight may or may not kill you. Getting killed has little to do with losing and winning the fight overall and a lot to do with what happens within the fight.

Note, this doesn't mean that PCs can't die in battle. It is imperative that a loss doesn't mean a TPK in the vast majority of circumstances, though.

Then know how to avoid getting killed in combat, and "fight until unable to continue fighting." is not recommended.

Moral of the story. You can lose. You can win. You can die. You can live.

Your choices are going to play a big role in that. Simply rolling by the averages or better or worse won't explain it.

I'm confused. If there's a 100% chance of victory, how is that a "fight of consequence" where there is "meaningful opposition"?

A fight of consequence is one where you CAN lose. A fight of consequence is not necessarily one where you will lose. I -hate- "fail on a 1."

I also hate "no matter what you do, you win, unless you're grossly stupid."

There are ways to ensure victory, barring your opponent doing something about it...that's your 100%. His likelyhood of doing something about it successfully (both knowing -what- to do and being -able- to do it) can screw with this, but -your- roll can be pretty safe.

However, its not just your rolls and your plans.

[MartinHarper]

A fight of consequence is one where you CAN lose. A fight of consequence is not necessarily one where you will lose.

Well, that's precisely my point. If there's a a 100% chance of victory, then this is a fight that you cannot lose, and therefore this is not a fight of consequence. You said that a fight of consequence has a success rate of between 30% and 100%. However, plainly the 100% figure is too high, as you have made if very clear that if there is a 100% success rate then it is not a fight of consequence. So, let's repeat the question.

What are the odds of winning in a fight of consequence, given that the PCs will probably have disciplined cavalry or the like more often than the NPCs, and that both sides are equally likely to have greatly superior tactics, and given that the PCs are of average competence in their decision making?

I'm perfectly happy for you to express the answer as a range if you find that easier, though I'm also interested to know what the average odds would be.

[Elennsar]

Martin, you are deliberately and intentionally ignoring my point at this point.


There are ways to ensure victory, barring your opponent doing something about it...that's your 100%. His likelyhood of doing something about it successfully (both knowing -what- to do and being -able- to do it) can screw with this, but -your- roll can be pretty safe.

However, its not just your rolls and your plans.

Your chance of losing is your opponent doing something about it and how likely (very roughly) that is to happen.

What you do in response is and what he does in response etc. is what will end the battle for one side or another.

This is not "we charge, they break on a X+, we win."

It is not that simple, and wanting it boiled down to those terms is impossible.

[Username17]

Saying that you are 100% likely to win if the enemy doesn't make choices that reduce that success rate is no different from saying that you are 100% likely to win if you roll well. It's a completely empty statement. Just like all of your other objections to mathematical descriptions of dice rolls and coin flips, your objection is not insightful, it doesn't make you sound clever, and it isn't true.

I no longer even care if you are serious. I no longer care if you are genuinely unclear about basic mathematical realities or if you're just being a troll. It doesn't even matter, because either way you are saying things that are objectively, provably wrong. And people have showed you impartially and with great patience how and why your objections are wrong. And you've been a totally cock about it over and over again.

Stop trolling these boards. Stop being a douchebag. Come back here maybe when you're mature enough in your understanding to recognize the difference between "before" and "after." Or at least mature enough to come to grips with the fact that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

I am going to permanently ignore you. On all threads. I suggest that everyone else do the same. Nothing good will come of trying to have a discussion on any subject with Elennsar. Any point he makes on any subject that sounds like it might be insightful is not. It's just the random fact that a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Except that Elennsar is posting digitally, so he's right only half that often.

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

Elennsar, permit me respond to your point before returning to asking my question.

I'm a (bad) Go player. Go is a board game of perfect information. In theory, at least, there is no luck. When I play Go, the victor is decided by what move I make, and what my opponent does in response, and what I do in response to that, and so forth. It is not "I attempt to control more territory, you are captured on an X, I win". It's not that simple.
When I play against another Go player of equal ranking, all other things being equal, I have a 50% chance of victory. On average, half the time I will win, and half the time I will lose.

If the probability of victory in Go can be stated, the probability of victory in a fight of consequence in your Artorius can be stated. I acknowledge that you want a game where luck is a small factor in deciding who is victorious. That's great. That does not mean that my question is meaningless or unanswerable. Given that you have said you will answer such questions in this thread, I'm going to persevere, as I am sure you are not a liar. Still, perhaps I should ask the question differently.

Imagine a million groups, all playing this game you're designing. Some are clever, some are dumb. Some are brave, some are cowardly. Some make plans, some don't. There's all the normal variation you'd expect from humanity. Each of these groups gets involved in a fight of consequence. Some fights are against superior opponents, some are against inferior opponents. Some are against superior numbers, some are against inferior numbers. Some opponents have good plans, some opponents have bad plans. Some are at the start of the campaign, and some are at the end. There's all the normal variation you'd expect from the campaign setting and a variety of DMs.

On average, how many of those million fights end in victory, and how many end in defeat?
On average, how many of those million fights end in survival, and how many end in death?

[Elennsar]

Frank: Congradulations, your determination to miss why anyone would dare dispute your point has overcome what little inclination to civility you might have, and made you make a viciously and unjustifiedly insulting post simply for the sake of being a jerk.

Martin: It depends on the fight.

In a fight vs. someone who is your superior, you might win as infrequently as 10% of the time.

In a fight vs. someone who is your inferior...I already stated this as well.

What is the average outcome? It -depends on what you do-.

I want to design something where the game is set up so you have a fighting chance of victory.

Not something where I aim for nine sample players out of ten or ninety out of a hundred winning, but something where the smart, brave, and prudent win (or at least, survive) and the foolish, cowardly, or reckless -don't-.

I cannot give you a "half the players lose" when what the players -do- and what their opponents -do- influences it.

If you do well, you win. If you do poorly, you lose. If you do poorly and roll poorly, you probably die. If you do well and roll poorly, you may or may not die. If you do well and roll well, you live.

How two people doing well cancel each other (or not) is not something I can answer just in terms of "doing well" or even "rolling 15s"

Rolling a 15 on Initiative is not as useful as rolling a 15 on your to hit, however.

Acknowledging that the AI is not (usually) a match for the human brain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Gettysburg!

You have about as much of a chance of victory in every battle (and in the campaign) as in this, assuming similar battles.

What you do not have is anything that will ensure victory whatever you do and whatever your opponent does and regardless of any dice.

[fbmf]

[TGFBS]
Let's try to keep it civil, folks.
[/TGFBS]

[violence in the media]

Losing a fight may or may not kill you. Winning a fight may or may not kill you. Getting killed has little to do with losing and winning the fight overall and a lot to do with what happens within the fight.

Note, this doesn't mean that PCs can't die in battle. It is imperative that a loss doesn't mean a TPK in the vast majority of circumstances, though.

Then know how to avoid getting killed in combat, and "fight until unable to continue fighting." is not recommended.

Moral of the story. You can lose. You can win. You can die. You can live.

I'm confused as to who the hell we're supposed to be playing in this campaign. Am I playing Sir Bob, Knight Lieutenant in Artorius' Army, or am I playing a random Knight Lieutenant that happens to be Sir Bob until he gets killed or rendered unplayable in some fashion? At that point, I'm playing Sir Neil who has taken over his commission?

Along those lines, am I supposed to be playing a knight going out there and smashing fools in the skull personally? Or is it assumed that I have a retinue of 50 horsemen, 100 infantry, and 100 archers to direct in battle with me everywhere I go? Do each of the players have these armies? Do we collectively control one force? Can players choose to be non-knights? Can I play a wizard? Can I play an assassin? How easy/difficult is it to shank someone in their bathtub or bedchambers?

The way you (Elennsar) are talking about this, the more I'm getting a mental image of the old board game Shogun. Is the ultimate goal of this game to become king myself? Are the players cooperating or competing?

[Elennsar]

Okay, and pointing out that this is shaping out in funny ways...but here goes.

#1: You are playing one of Artorius's trusted Companions, in the sense Alexander's "Companion Cavalry" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_cavalry ).

You may or may not have rank, but will probably start with none.

#2: You're playing Sir Bob. What you do when Sir Bob is incapaciated is up to you - ideally, taking over a formerly NPC Companion would work fine (practically, I'm not sure how well that sort of thing -works-, but I'd like to keep it open for anyone who would want it either to try someone new or handle an old character being incapaciated).

#3: Smashing fools in the skull personally, though if Artorius thinks you're capable and he need someone to do it, you will get promoted and you will get a retinue. You're still expected to do a fair amount of personal head splitting, though - leaders lead from the front unless forced to hold back due to tactical circumstances, which is why Artorius -has- a band of Companions (there's probably a hundred or so at most).

#4: If they qualify and want them, yes.

#5: If you're a captain, you're in command. How you handle that with your lieutenants is up to you - and of course, you're welcome to work together to come up with plans so far as that is reasonable whether your characters are together or not.

#5: I am not sure yet. Probably not. Not that there's something wrong with wanting to play someone other than a knight, but the game -is- designed around the Companions.

#6: No.

#7: No assassins either.

#8: Its relatively easy if you can get in a position to do so and fairly hard -to- get in that position.

#9: Your ultimate goal is to defeat the barbarians and help Artorius restore civilization (after I sort out how much this is influenced by Arthur and how much by Charlemagne I'll get back to you) to the kingdom/s.

No, playing a barbarian is not an option - I have nothing against it in theory, but it would be a very different game and have different objectives and difficulties and starting situations and so on, so "either or" would be too much work to do properly.

This, of course, assumes that you're in it for the ideals. But magic's existance is up for question and assassin as a character type doesn't fit the setting.

Stabbing enemies in the ass while they're doing their business is merely dishonorable, not a skill set.

And that kind of assassination is more common than ninja-ish "assassins", which is what comes to mind when "assassin" is a character type.


I appologize for any lack of clarity here or elsewhere - but there's a lot of things to be decided, sorted out, and dealt with before anything can go from the idea or possibility to a reality.

[norms29]

...virtually no chance of winning all 40 encounters unless the PCs are brilliant tacticians and the dice are on their side.

Once again, we assume something to the effect of "roll (X)+ on the d20" and that sums up the odds.

Combat. Is. Not. That. Bleeping. Simple.

Do you, or do you not, understand that several people have asked you for a probabilistic statement which includes the player's choices? even if the game has no random factors or die rolls at all it is still possible to estimate the probability of success in a given scenario, and from that information, and similar estimates of how likely a given scenario is to happen, you can calculate the average probablitity of success over all the scenarios. Dice (or cards, or Rock-paper-scissors) are not required for that.

...its not just your rolls and your plans.

I'm confused, what else is there? there's luck (the rolls) and plans (the players choices and strategies) what other factor influences success? [/b]

[Elennsar]

Do you or do you not not get "It isn't that simple."

You have -a chance- of winning. Some encounters -as individual encounters- have that being very high. Some have it very low.

If you do something in scenario A, you might have a much easier scenario B, a much harder scenario B, or have B replaced by b which would otherwise not have happened at all.

I'm confused, what else is there? there's luck (the rolls) and plans (the players choices and strategies) what other factor influences success?

Your skill (the +20 to whatever).

The other guy's rolls, plans, and skills.

[norms29]

1. so the player's probabliltiy of success in each encounter isn't independant, fair enough, although that actually fits very well into the "roll (X)+ on the d20" paradigm, so that comment was apparently just a redherring.

2. so we're counting the numbers on the character sheet as a factor, seperate from the rolls that those number affect? ok. that second par though; the other guy's rolls can be lumped in with "your" rolls as a factor, Luck is luck, you rolling high and the enemy rolling low have the same effect.

on the subject of Plans and skills, since you've already ruled out playing as the barabarians. the "other guy" is being created and played by some GM type figure, so his plans and skills are primarily determined by how badly the GM feels the need for a penis extension.

[Elennsar]

1) The point is that it doesn't boil down to "if you roll a 5, you win the encounter.", with 5 being used as a number that the d20 can produce.

2) Being really skilled is an advantage that simply rolling high does not equal, yes. Someone with (assuming a range of skill from 1-20, say) skill 10+ can parry weapons with their bare hands (example of something that could be tied to it, not something I'm using)

3) No, they're primarily determined by how skilled and competent the other guy should be.

If you cannot accept facing better opponents or NPC allies then you as a possibility without mocking the GM and/or writers for a "penis extension", then please stay out of the thread.

People who are determined to have NPCs be ultimately there only to be defeated are going to be disappointed. As someone who finds that to be in the top five ways to ruin a rpg (having miserably inept NPCs dominate the realm of NPCs you deal with, that is), anything I have any hand in designing is going to avoid that as much as possible.

Its boring, implausible, and unnecessary.

[Roog]

Do you or do you not not get "It isn't that simple."

You have -a chance- of winning. Some encounters -as individual encounters- have that being very high. Some have it very low.

Imagine that you are not playing that game - instead you are watching other people play the game.

You do not get to see the dice rolls, all you get to see is characters fighting, winning or losing, living or dying.

You do not get to choose their tactics, but you have seen their previous combats, so you know their tactical ability and tendancies.

You can still estimate the chances of winning or losing, and living or dying. That is the situation that you are being asked about. How low do their chances of defeat or death have to be before this is no longer a battle of consequence?

The answer cannot be "Any chance > 0%". I have > 0% chance of death for the trip to work I take every day - but its not "of consequence", even for me.

[Elennsar]

Barring tactics that turn things around, you have to have AT LEAST a 10% chance to lose. (your likelyhood of being able to have those tactics can be anywhere from 100% to 0%, and has to do with you and the details I can't and won't try to predict).

You have to, if things work out to threaten your death (which may or may not be much more unlikely than these odds), face at least a 10% chance of dying for it to be a serious risk.

As you said, your trip to work has a nonzero chance.

However, there are too many things that can prevent (or increase) the likelyhood of a character dying to say "at least 10%, so..."

Not all of which are even "bad tactics'...sometimes, an all out assault might be a -good- idea (don't bet on it, but when the chips are down, it does work on the other guy, and your chances of not going down aren't looking too good.)

So you have a chance that is greater than zero and less than or equal to 90%.

Expecting an answer for an average encounter is assuming that all encounters neatly follow that in play, which because things that come in and break the usual rule of 10-90 (or 90-10) do exist is even less likely.

Its not even "and if you face an encounter without those things"...you -always- have at least one drama point by whatever name in an encounter.

[Roog]

Post due to misreading (ignore).

[Elennsar]

Expecting an answer for an average encounter is assuming that all encounters neatly follow that in play, which because things that come in and break the usual rule of 10-90 (or 90-10) do exist is even less likely.

all over again.

Your likelyhood of dying at anything you can be expected to soak (instead of spending a point to not -be- there when a catapult rock would slam into you.) is closer to probably around 70% as a cap than 90.

The assumption -is- that you are wearing mail, however (which is good armor by the standards of the setting), so getting caught unarmored can be extremely painful - try not to let your opponents find the chance (its not at all impossible, and doesn't require wearing armor all day either).

Your opponents, usually not (though your equals will be). One of the perks of being a Companion. Mail armor, a horse, and a good sword are pretty safe givens.

Post due to misreading (ignore).

Post answered just to make sure the details were clear, since "losing" includes "being forced to retreat", and winning includes "being mortally wounded but surviving long enough to carry the day".

Hope the intended clarification didn't muddle things.

[Roog]

Your likelyhood of dying at anything you can be expected to soak (instead of spending a point to not -be- there when a catapult rock would slam into you.) is closer to probably around 70% as a cap than 90.

The assumption -is- that you are wearing mail, however (which is good armor by the standards of the setting), so getting caught unarmored can be extremely painful - try not to let your opponents find the chance (its not at all impossible, and doesn't require wearing armor all day either).

Your opponents, usually not (though your equals will be). One of the perks of being a Companion. Mail armor, a horse, and a good sword are pretty safe givens.

Again, take a step back. In an unremarkable battle of some consequence (i.e. one that will be played out) against inferior opponents, before that other group of people play out the battle, how likely do you see character death being?

[Elennsar]

Depends on what happens.

And what people spend their hero points on.

You have at most a 70% chance of failing against anything you're supposed to be able to soak (as stated, catapult missiles are "you die." unless you get out of the way, which can be done by hero points.)

How likely it is that you will have to make that roll depends on multiple things.

Your tactics are going to influence it.

[Roog]

Depends on what happens.

And what people spend their hero points on.

You have at most a 70% chance of failing against anything you're supposed to be able to soak (as stated, catapult missiles are "you die." unless you get out of the way, which can be done by hero points.)

How likely it is that you will have to make that roll depends on multiple things.

Your tactics are going to influence it.

It also depends fundamentally on what you, the person with the idea of what the game should be, think it should be.

I have no idea how many times a character is likley to need to roll to soak, how many hero points he would have, or how often he will need to spend them; and at this point none of those things matter to me. You don't need game mechanics to describe a battle. But, I do want to know how often you evisage charcters dying in different circumstances, as well as their chances of victory. It is easier to start with these questions at the 'high odds of victory/survial' end of the spectrum.

So, how regulary do you forsee charcters dying in fights where the PCs are dominant? About once per campaign? More often? Less?

[Elennsar]

I see it as a distinct possibility but not a given.

As in, I can see people being able to preserve a character to the end of the campaign without having to do anything out-of-the-ordinarily cautious.

I wouldn't say it -will- happen.

Your choices will influence this. Sometimes bold but risky things work - you get the success and get away from the risk. Sometimes they don't - you get the risk before the plan has a chance to work.

I can give you a "if you do X" for certain events, but I can't spell out a full campaign with all the variables (including, for want of a better term, random events).