Informed decisions and dice rolls.

[Talakeal]

Note that the initial assumption in this quote is not mentioned explicitly, or even hinted at where I can see it, in your opening post, and reads from here as a shifting of the goalposts. Note, also, that the assumption in your parenthetical - that a Save or Die encounter is not going to be fun 'in any case' - may be true from your perspective, but is not empirically true.

I really don't understand what you are talking about with this shifting the goalposts stuff. I get that you are upset about something, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what. Could you please elaborate?

Also, yes, I am stating my opinion here rather than universal truth. I didn't think that needed to be spelled out. Still, I am hard pressed to think of a situation short of "I am tired of the game and want to go home" where someone would enjoy walking along and having their character killed by a random dice roll with no chance to avoid, influence, or respond to the outcome aside from pure chance.



As for the definition of an "encounter", I suppose you could boil something like disarming a trap or sneaking past a guard down to an encounter; I usually don't, but sure. In this case, is bypassing a single encounter which could be boiled down to "Roll disable device DC 20. If you fail take 3d6 damage" really that big a deal?

As for your disintegrate example, yes, an encounter could be decided by a single dice roll. That is not the same thing as saying the encounter consists of a single dice roll. Also, in this case, would you consider resistances or immunities to also ruin the encounter? If being able to, for example, automatically succeed on a fortitude save once per day, is so incredibly OP in this case, wouldn't also have a +2 to ALL fort saves or having a magic item that makes you immune to fortitude effects be just as bad?

[NichG]

If attrition is meaningful, then you don't necessarily need every encounter to have a risk of outright failure to be meaningful. 'How much did it cost you?' has the potential to be a much more nuanced question to ask about a given encounter than 'Did you win?', especially since for long campaigns to actually work, the answer to 'Did you win?' has to be strongly biased towards 'yes' (otherwise, under statistical independence assumptions, even a small percentage chance of TPK eventually becomes a near-certainty over many encounters).

D&D 3.5 has a lot of ways to make attrition less meaningful compared to previous editions, which is why in higher-op situations it feels like if you remove rocket tag there's not that much left to a lot of encounters. That doesn't mean that the same thing is true in other systems where there's more support for attrition and non-binary outcomes.

[Arbane]

You phrase it rather dramatically but basically I think that's the reason, yes. In their core, dice-based RPGs have a strong element of risk, chance and what you make from it. Imagine a system where you can spend points of some sort to improve a roll. If you're allowed to spend them before the roll, you have to weight probability against cost and either spend a lot for an ensures success or very little and take a risk of failure. If you were allowed to spend points after the roll, you could just spend enough points to never fail until you run out of points to spend.

That would remove the element of luck to a large degree and replace it by bookkeeping. That doesn't really sound all that fun.

There's a fair number of diceless roleplaying games, like Amber. Nobilis, and the Marvel superhero one, which somehow manage to be fun without dice. It changes the question from "do I succeed?" to 'how much do I NEED to succeed?"

[Jay R]

Why is it that whenever an RPG gives you the ability to modify or reroll a dice it almost invariably does it from a position of ignorance?

For the same reason that you place bets in poker before you can see the other players' cards.

And it isn't a position of ignorance. It's a position of partial knowledge.

Do people genuinely prefer to play guessing games as some sort of thrill rush akin to gambling? Or is it because the authors think these abilities would be overpowered if they allowed you to make an informed decision?

It's not a mere "guessing game". Games of partial knowledge are a large part of the mathematics of game theory. And yes, sometimes they would be overpowered.

But more important, I suspect, is this aspect: We're trying to simulate something. In a fight, I can decide to use my special move, or bring out my hidden dagger, but only before finding out the result of doing so. I can't try to hit him with my normal move, see that it missed, and then say, "OK, I now decide that I already used my special move that time so I really hit him."

But it's perfectly reasonable to keep it hidden when fighting the guards, and pull it out when I face the captain, or use it as a last resort when I'm about to lose the fight. These are actual tactical decisions, based on incomplete information. (Or, if you prefer to put it this way, based on the information the character would have when he makes teh decision.)

I personally find always firing blind to be annoying, especially when you already have the randomness of the dice roll in place, and think the strategic level of play would be much more interesting if they didn't include the guessing game element.

I don't think betting on incomplete information is "always firing blind", and the strategic element of doing so is quite interesting.

Chess and poker are very different games, and lots of people enjoy both of them, but they play very differently.

Some people prefer complete information. They will play chess but not poker.

Others like the strategic element of deciding with incomplete information. They will play poker but not chess.

Any ideas why they are so prevalant? How do you feel about them?

They are prevalent because many people enjoy them, and because they simulate real tactical decisions.

I enjoy both chess and poker, and can enjoy play with any kind of mechanic. There is always a best move based on my current knowledge set, and part of the game, in poker and D&D, is trying to get more information to make better decisions with.

But I've actually studied game theory, and my dissertation involved solving a problem of incomplete information. So mine is not a typical opinion.

[kyoryu]

But more important, I suspect, is this aspect: We're trying to simulate something. In a fight, I can decide to use my special move, or bring out my hidden dagger, but only before finding out the result of doing so. I can't try to hit him with my normal move, see that it missed, and then say, "OK, I now decide that I already used my special move that time so I really hit him."

That's certainly one way to handle it. It's not the only way.

In Fate, expenditure of Fate Points is done after the roll and is generally meant to simulate a *sequence*, not a single action. So, in your example, the "special attack" would be a second attack done in sequence, not retroactively changing the original attack to be a special attack.

Also, in Fate it's generally good form to kind of leave an ellipsis in the success/failure roll to give people an opportunity to chime in.

"His swing comes in, and it looks like it's gonna hit you..." "except with my _Ninja Training_, I duck beneath the swing. Non-ninjas are so clumsy."

[Jay R]

That's certainly one way to handle it. It's not the only way.

In Fate, expenditure of Fate Points is done after the roll and is generally meant to simulate a *sequence*, not a single action. So, in your example, the "special attack" would be a second attack done in sequence, not retroactively changing the original attack to be a special attack.

Also, in Fate it's generally good form to kind of leave an ellipsis in the success/failure roll to give people an opportunity to chime in.

"His swing comes in, and it looks like it's gonna hit you..." "except with my _Ninja Training_, I duck beneath the swing. Non-ninjas are so clumsy."

Certainly Fate does so, but that's not germane to this thread. The OP asked why the other way was so prevalent. I was answering his actual question.

[jedipotter]

Why is it that whenever an RPG gives you the ability to modify or reroll a dice it almost invariably does it from a position of ignorance?

For example, in WoD you can spend a point of willpower to receive a bonus on a roll, but you must declare doing so before any dice are rolled. Furthermore, in Pathfinder the improved save feats allow you to reroll saving throws and Eberron Action points allow you to add to rolls, but only before you learn the DC of the test and whether or not you succeeded.

Do people genuinely prefer to play guessing games as some sort of thrill rush akin to gambling? Or is it because the authors think these abilities would be overpowered if they allowed you to make an informed decision?

Most RPG's are set around the pas/fail idea. For any roll there is always a chance that you will roll high or roll low...so there is always risk. And that is the base idea that makes the vast majority of games fun, the risk. It can be just as much fun to fail as it is to win.

A lot of people have great stories of epic failures, right along side the epic successes ones.

And modifying the roll can add to the fun. But knowing the facts changes things.

It's very boring and mechanical...and not fun at all, to know the details. So a 10 is needed to make the roll, and the character has +10, so they don't use the modification. But when they need a 30, they will use the modification. It just sucks all the fun out of it...and your more playing math then playing an RPG.

And it can make success automatic....and automatic success is boring and makes the game pointless. Once your at that point, you might as well just toss away the game rules and free form it.

[NichG]

Its possible to design interesting games where there's no risk (e.g. no non-determinism), but generally speaking doing so requires that the rules be more carefully tuned than cases in which there's a small random element, because if the game is too easily solvable then that winning strategy can from then on just be repeated. E.g. you need something like Chess or Go, not Tic-Tac-Toe.

[Talakeal]

Most RPG's are set around the pas/fail idea. For any roll there is always a chance that you will roll high or roll low...so there is always risk. And that is the base idea that makes the vast majority of games fun, the risk. It can be just as much fun to fail as it is to win.

A lot of people have great stories of epic failures, right along side the epic successes ones.

And modifying the roll can add to the fun. But knowing the facts changes things.

It's very boring and mechanical...and not fun at all, to know the details. So a 10 is needed to make the roll, and the character has +10, so they don't use the modification. But when they need a 30, they will use the modification. It just sucks all the fun out of it...and your more playing math then playing an RPG.

And it can make success automatic....and automatic success is boring and makes the game pointless. Once your at that point, you might as well just toss away the game rules and free form it.

Why put such mechanics in the game at all then? If they are not fun when they work, and the odds of them working are negligible, what is the point?

Also, many such abilities are either rerolls or add the result of a dice roll rather than just a flat bonus, in which case there is no guaranteed success*.

Also, I would imagine not knowing the numbers adds a lot more math to the game. If I know I need to spend 2 action points to succeed on a roll then that is that. But if I need to actually crunch the numbers and analyze probability then there is a lot of math and slowing down the game.

*Unless of course you are a wizard, in which case you can usually choose to simply expend a spell slot rather

[NichG]

One of the advantages of uncertainty is actually that it makes the math much harder. If you make the math hard enough, eventually people have to just stop doing it and instead work based on intuition and feel. Which can be useful for getting people into a different mindset.

For example, just try to do the math for something like 'I am rolling 6d10 keep 3 with exploding d10s, trying to beat a 25', where you can spend points to add extra unkept dice. Even if you try to work out things ahead of time there's enough parameters that you pretty much have to wing it.

[jedipotter]

Why put such mechanics in the game at all then? If they are not fun when they work, and the odds of them working are negligible, what is the point?

Well, even if they are not ''fun'', they might be interesting.

[chaos_redefined]

One of the advantages of uncertainty is actually that it makes the math much harder. If you make the math hard enough, eventually people have to just stop doing it and instead work based on intuition and feel. Which can be useful for getting people into a different mindset.

For example, just try to do the math for something like 'I am rolling 6d10 keep 3 with exploding d10s, trying to beat a 25', where you can spend points to add extra unkept dice. Even if you try to work out things ahead of time there's enough parameters that you pretty much have to wing it.

Then that is the game trying to punish people for having badwrongfun. Some players might actually enjoying calculating the odds.

As for the roll 6d10, keep 3, exploding d10s... Since we are keeping half the dice, it roughly averages to something around 22-23. Keep one dice and you should be fine. Exploding dice will reduce the need for this, but I typically try not to rely on that.

[huttj509]

One of the advantages of uncertainty is actually that it makes the math much harder. If you make the math hard enough, eventually people have to just stop doing it and instead work based on intuition and feel. Which can be useful for getting people into a different mindset.

For example, just try to do the math for something like 'I am rolling 6d10 keep 3 with exploding d10s, trying to beat a 25', where you can spend points to add extra unkept dice. Even if you try to work out things ahead of time there's enough parameters that you pretty much have to wing it.

My L5R GM made a chart for that, actually.

[NichG]

Then that is the game trying to punish people for having badwrongfun. Some players might actually enjoying calculating the odds.

Its the game trying to encourage a particular style, speed, etc of play. If you and your friends want to play a game about calculating the odds, then obviously you don't choose or design a game that does this. If on the other hand you want to play a game about intuition and heuristic choices, making it inordinately difficult/impossible to calculate the odds can keep people from doing it reflexively.

As for the roll 6d10, keep 3, exploding d10s... Since we are keeping half the dice, it roughly averages to something around 22-23. Keep one dice and you should be fine. Exploding dice will reduce the need for this, but I typically try not to rely on that.

Yeah, this is what I mean about heuristic reasoning versus calculation. It's a different skill-set to be able to take something and approximate it well enough for decision-making without actually computing the precise probability of success. To put it another way, if I ask a bunch of players to tell me what the chance of succeeding on a DC 17 check is on a d20 roll with a +3 modifier, they can all eventually come to the conclusion that they need a 14 or higher to succeed, which is 7/20ths. They'll all get the same answer eventually but will take a variable amount of time to get there (which, since the game doesn't make that time a resource, can lead to things slowing down if everyone is waiting for that one guy to finish computing).

In a game where you can't easily confirm the calculation, its more about whether you have a good 'feel' for the odds, and now that skill can vary between players. E.g. the game can differentially reward people for being good at approximation and estimation. That's a very dry way of putting it and probably sounds very unappealing, but its the same sort of skills behind things like 'there's a dragon in there - do we think we can take it?'. It tends to feel like a more immersive and authentic kind of reasoning for characters in fast-paced life-or-death situations than overt calculation.

[chaos_redefined]

In a game where you can't easily confirm the calculation, its more about whether you have a good 'feel' for the odds, and now that skill can vary between players. E.g. the game can differentially reward people for being good at approximation and estimation. That's a very dry way of putting it and probably sounds very unappealing, but its the same sort of skills behind things like 'there's a dragon in there - do we think we can take it?'. It tends to feel like a more immersive and authentic kind of reasoning for characters in fast-paced life-or-death situations than overt calculation.

I've been thinking recently about the timmy/johnny/spike mentalities applied to magic. And while you may consider it "probably sounds very unappealing", it does cater to the spike mentality quite well.

As for the question in the opening post... The problem, at least in 3.5/pathfinder, is most likely a side-effect of all-or-nothing save-or-lose effects. Which... should be removed from the game for it's own good. (Frankly, I'm surprised pathfinder kept them in, although they at least got rid of save-or-die effects). Once they are removed, a lot of the defensive power of rerolls is gone, so they can probably become informed rerolls.

[Pex]

I agree with the OP. It has bothered me for a long while as well. It comes into effect in one of my group's campaigns where I'm playing a Dual Cursed Oracle and use its luck revelations. When forcing an opponent's roll, I try to do it to reroll a crit threat. It bothers the DM a lot for reasons that has nothing to do with the OP, different topic. Sometimes the DM won't say it's a crit threat, just saying it's a hit, to see if I force a reroll. However, he's gotten used to the ability and doesn't do that often enough to notice. He's allowed for me to say "If the opponent hits I force a reroll." I do this when provoking an AoO. It hasn't happened yet the reroll was a crit threat, but at that point I'm just trying to avoid a hit. If the opponent crits, oh well. Occasionally I say I force a reroll if the opponent makes a save against the spell. When a party member rolls a 1 to hit, I use it on him. The DM uses the crit fail cards, which I hate with a passion. I have the party avoid it as much as I can. I'll also sometimes make a party member reroll a failed save when I think it happens at a really bad time. When using the other revelation on myself, I also do it when I roll a 1 to hit or low on a saving throw I really don't want to miss. I also have an advantage. As we rotate DMs and campaigns, I noticed they all tend to give the AC of the monster or DC of the saving throw before the players roll. Not all the time, but enough. It's for convenience sake to help speed up the game. I still have to be careful when I use my revelations, since it's only once per party member per day and twice on myself, for now, with a feat.

It is quite noticeable in 5E a number of abilities like these, especially in feats, actually do allow you to know the result before you decide to use the ability. It's mainly for abilities that allow you to add a number after the roll, a flat number or a die roll. They stand out precisely because that's a new thing.