Fan Dungeon for GURPS DF now Up

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Only the last one is actually true. I might note that a 25% chance (roughly taking into account low damage rolls benefitting the players) per second (against two of them, like I said, which is highly likely for at least one midline fighter) knocking you down is high.

Be very careful using such simple mechanical chances in trying to determine the outcome of a fight. For example, according to such simple mechanics (And Nymdok's balancing formulas in particular), my PCs should have lost the last fight they were in, and lost horribly. Like 70% chance of the group "average" being hit and forced to death-check each second. And that was after rounding up all player abilities, assuming they used every single buff available (They didn't), that PCs struck only unarmored locations (Without even suffering hit location penalties), and completely ignoring the big demon-champion's most vicious attack, an explosive attack that couldn't even be fully dodged, and ended up being the only thing that caused even a little injury on them.

Also, I'd point to Bruno's line about "assuming those worst fighters aren't doing anything special to help in their own defense." That was an important distinction, which I'm sure is why she included it. Defenses can be bumped up nicely if you're focusing on it, from simple options like Retreat, Extra Effort, or choosing a defensive maneuver instead of a regular Attack, to more complex ones such as Defensive Grip, Cross-Parry, or defensive Feints. Poorer fighters, or support characters, are much more likely to use their full defensive options, sacrificing offensive power, to survive an attack, while the more capable damage-dealers focus on killing that attacker. And that's not even getting into the much more vague area of tactics, terrain, etc, which can greatly skew things.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

.....And Nymdok's balancing formulas in particular.....

If you still have the data for the encounter, Id love to look at them at try to see where the model failed. Gives me a chance to perhaps improve it :)

Email, PM, or we could even start a thread to look at it if you like :)

Nymdok

[Greg 1]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

If you still have the data for the encounter, Id love to look at them at try to see where the model failed. Gives me a chance to perhaps improve it :)

I didn't think that Phoenix Dragon was suggesting that your model failed. I just read him as pointing out what the model is intended to do - predict the results when everyone is making standard melee attacks. It is great at this and so extremely useful.

In an actual game, players will come up with cunning plans, sneakers will undertake recon, warriors will strike for the vulnerable bits, and, as you pointed out, spellcasters will cast spells.

[Greg 1]

Originally Posted by martinl

Old school and freaky. Nice.

Cool! That was the idea. :)

Not a Nit: The ecology and logic of the lower levels is demented, insane, and more than a little OMGWTFBBQ. Good job.

:D

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Greg 1

I didn't think that Phoenix Dragon was suggesting that your model failed. I just read him as pointing out what the model is intended to do - predict the results when everyone is making standard melee attacks. It is great at this and so extremely useful.

A bit of both, I guess. From the few battles I've actually examined afterwards, the model seems to fail pretty severely at predicting what happens in the actual battle. Predicting the results when everyone is just standing there exchanging standard melee attacks with nothing special going on has no real relevance to any reasonable combat. It's another "featureless infinite plain" but with more numbers.

And such unusual differences in action are not just restricted to PCs, either. Enemies have many options available to them, too.

[Greg 1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

A bit of both, I guess. From the few battles I've actually examined afterwards, the model seems to fail pretty severely at predicting what happens in the actual battle. Predicting the results when everyone is just standing there exchanging standard melee attacks with nothing special going on has no real relevance to any reasonable combat. It's another "featureless infinite plain" but with more numbers.

And such unusual differences in action are not just restricted to PCs, either. Enemies have many options available to them, too.

I can't speak for Nymdok, but I didn't think that his system was intended to provide firm predictions of who would win. I thought that his system was intended as an aid to help GMs eyeball it.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Greg 1

I can't speak for Nymdok, but I didn't think that his system was intended to provide firm predictions of who would win. I thought that his system was intended as an aid to help GMs eyeball it.

Its as well as you speaking for me, because thats exactly what I would have said :)

The model is NOT meant to be definitive. No model for gurps combat played by savvy players can be. No statistical model can be because an RPG encounter is only played once. Its meant to give an idea of how things are likely to go.

Nymdok

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Its as well as you speaking for me, because thats exactly what I would have said :)

The model is NOT meant to be definitive. No model for gurps combat played by savvy players can be. No statistical model can be because an RPG encounter is only played once. Its meant to give an idea of how things are likely to go.

Nymdok

The thing is, if the model fails consistently, meaning that if it predicts even chances, and ands up with the players winning 99% of the time, then it's a sign that the model doesn't accurately model game reality.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

The thing is, if the model fails consistently, meaning that if it predicts even chances, and ands up with the players winning 99% of the time, then it's a sign that the model doesn't accurately model game reality.

Fair enough. :)

I suspect (naturally) that, applied properly, the model is a fairly reliable indicator, but I need data and lots of it to be sure.

I wont speak to 'game reality', but I can say that even if the model(properly applied) does NOT work, you at least have some reference numbers ot go back to as you plan the next encounter for your players and can adjust the difficulty from there.

The only model that accounts for EVERYTHING is reality.

That said, have you tried it Kuroshima? Im always looking for actual play results as validation/criticisim of what I have really helps going forward. For our group, it works well, but we're still just one group. :)

Again, Id rather not continue to derail Greg1s thread, if yall want to talk about it further, feel free to email me, pm me, or start a new thread :)

ETA: JUst saw the thread that Phoenix Dragon Put up.

Nymdok
Have Spreadsheet, Will Travel

[Greg 1]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

I wont speak to 'game reality', but I can say that even if the model(properly applied) does NOT work, you at least have some reference numbers ot go back to as you plan the next encounter for your players and can adjust the difficulty from there.

The model is certainly useful to me. I wouldn't use it to calculate the outcome of a fight but it gives me useful information when I try to eyeball things.