I've finally figured out how to articulate...

VedwintheTyrant

I've finally figured out how to articulate my dislike of percentage-chance based abilities.

I'm well aware that it is now far too late for my opinion to be incorporated into the game, and even if there were time left I doubt this would be a worthy use of the developer's time. However, I wanted to share what I consider to be an elegant summation of my opinion.

The problem I have with percentage-chance based abilities (particularly when they appear on weapons) is that they break my suspension of disbelief.

I put a certain amount of trust into the rules which are used to articulate the game. I accept that there will be saving throws and attack rolls, and that the results of those rolls will be balanced to give me a challenge. I accept that the game designers have taken the time to ensure that there will be sufficient internal consistency to the rules so that any given session will fall within a continuum of that internal consistency.

When an ability calls on probability which is not represented by the components of the game system (which I feel that percentage-chance based abilities do in AD&D) it calls my attention to the fact that there are two sets of probabilistic results--those which compose the balance of the system and those which compose the chance that in my lifetime I will see any given variation of those results.

At this point I am no longer playing the game, but rather I'm trying to judge if I've been enough of a consistently lucky person to warrant choosing those abilities.

My contention is that it's bad form to ask the player to accept one version of probability while using another when it suits the designer's whim.

ajwz

Sometimes a good way to articulate is to break up large walls of text into smaller, more managable paragraphs.

I disagree though. If the ability was the correct one to chose has nothing to do with how lucky you have been with the dice rolls - I was the right or wrong decision, regardless of the end result.

If you are asked to bet $10 if you can guess the correct roll of a d6, and your choice are 1-5 or 6, then the right choice is always 1-5, even if ultimately the result of the dice roll is 6 this doesn't change.

Bytebrain

@ajwz said: "Sometimes a good way to articulate is to break up large walls of text into smaller, more managable paragraphs."

Yeah, my head started to hurt halfway through.

Tetraploid

I am not sure I understand what you're saying. Expressing a probability as a percentage doesn't make it a different kind of probability to the probabilities used in the rest of the game. It's just a different way of describing it. If the games rolls a d20 and the effect you want requires a 20, that's a 5% probability. If an item description says '20% of the time', that's basically saying it would happen on values 17-20 on a d20.

VedwintheTyrant

17-20 on a d20 tells me that within the rules of the game system there's a substantial minority of instances when a result will occur. 20% tells me that in 100 instances of the game calling on the function in question 20 results will be positive. It also tells me that because that probability exists in a macroscopic scale my own experience of it will be affected by large scale variations in probability. I could be playing the 1:10000 chance game where every time the game calls that function it returns a negative result, even though in the average of 100000 games the probability is still 20%. I prefer the former because it aligns with all the other premises I've accepted in order to play the game.

Moomintroll

Could you reiterate that more concisely?

Do you mean that you don't like that some things are based on probability whilst others are fated to happen, which you find inconsistent?

Or maybe an example of what you mean.

Space_hamster

BG is basically a computer simulation of a dice game, chance, chaos, and unpredictability are what make it fun. Adding percentages, boosts, potions, modifiers ect... to your character increase the odds in your favor (or decrease them in some instances). Every time you do something in BG, it's like rolling the dice. I suggest you turn on dice rolls, then you can see the game 'thinking' in real time.

VedwintheTyrant

I argue that there is a difference between a weapon which stuns 20% of the time and a weapon which stuns if the target fails a saving throw vs. spell. That difference is in the perception of the player.

A 20% chance asks the player to consider that in 20% of the instances in which that player observes the weapon being used there will be a stunning effect. A saving throw vs. spell asks the player to consider that a monster may be particularly susceptible or resistant to magic and that the game will show this in the monsters saving throw values.

In the first case the player attempting to discern the value of the weapon must consider the likelihood that statistically unlikely events (the game where fewer than 20 in 100 instances of stunning are observed which evens out because of the game in which more than 20 in 100 instances of stunning are observed) are statistically likely in the long term.

In the second case the player attempting to discern the value of the weapon must consider the direction the story is taking.

In the first case a concern external to the game system is brought into the player's experience of the game system. In the second case the player can rest in the knowledge that the assumptions ze's been asked to make in order to play the game are the basis for zir experience of the game.

VedwintheTyrant

@ajwz - has this helped?

Rapscallion

I'm not sure I understood your point in the op, but your last post made a bit more sense. Are you saying that you don't like percentage based gameplay components because they are too metagame? That having a percentage based weapon proc involves a game mechanic that the player must consider, versus a world mechanic that a character must consider.

If that is the case, then yes I agree. A character should pick up a weapon and know that it stands a good chance of stunning weak monsters but probably won't work so well against the tougher critters.

Space_hamster

Just cast a spell that lowers the saving throws of your enemy, then strike him. Nothing like loading the odds in your favor.

Vonbek777

Let's say a handgun manufacture who makes handguns for the US Army has found that in routine use, a specific model has a high rate, 20% chance, of misfire. Army doesn't want the weapon, but some idiot in the Pentagon and some money under the table in Congress, gets the handgun appropriated. Word of mouth spreads, and troops on the ground find out about the high percentage of misfire. Now take two soldiers. One believes it is a fate argument, handgun manufacture must have some flaw, no way to know if he received a bad weapon, time and chance will tell. Another soldier believes it must be an inherent flaw to the model, affected all produced. Decides to take matters in his own hands. Begins to obsessively disassemble and clean his firearm always looking for the flaw. Two weeks later both soldiers suffer misfires. However, the soldier suspecting fate, brought backup pistols just in case. The soldier who believed he had solved his problem through rigorous cleaning, was so stunned he could not react and bought the farm.

Much later it was determined it wasn't the guns at all, but a small flaw in an ammo factory that affected about 20% of ammo produced and had specifically produced the ammo for the handgun manufacture.

Moomintroll

Actually, considering the original post was about immersion..

All you need to know is that "this shield is better than that one" and not "this shield will block attacks 10 more times out of one hundred attacks more than that one will."

jflieder

VedwintheTyrant said:

I argue that there is a difference between a weapon which stuns 20% of the time and a weapon which stuns if the target fails a saving throw vs. spell. That difference is in the perception of the player.

A 20% chance asks the player to consider that in 20% of the instances in which that player observes the weapon being used there will be a stunning effect. A saving throw vs. spell asks the player to consider that a monster may be particularly susceptible or resistant to magic and that the game will show this in the monsters saving throw values.

In the first case the player attempting to discern the value of the weapon must consider the likelihood that statistically unlikely events (the game where fewer than 20 in 100 instances of stunning are observed which evens out because of the game in which more than 20 in 100 instances of stunning are observed) are statistically likely in the long term.

So if an effect that is described to occur 20% of the time doesn't happen exactly 20% of the time, it's bunk? If in every instance the an 11 or higher attack roll results in a hit while a 10 or lower roll results in a miss, is it your point that by the end of the game, these two results must be equal?

If you flip a coin, there's a 50% chance a heads will result and 50% chance that tails will result. If you observe 6 heads results in a row, is it still truly a 50% chance of each result? Yes. That's because probability isn't scripted. It can be predicted that with enough tosses that the two result counts with converge, but having them always being exactly equal is not how probability works.

I agree with Rapscallion: I can understand your preference of saving throw based encounters/resolutions over pure chance. And the 'character making decisions based on in-game world knowledge' versus 'player making decisions based on general life knowledge' is an interesting dynamic. However, I am not following your logic on probability fully. Your post about 20% vs. 17-20 on a 20 sided die is lost on me. Is there not equal chance in a 20% probability and in a 17-20 out of 20 probability that the effect will fail every instance throughout that game?

Dino

Wait...
If a weapon has a 5% chance to stun, the enemy will still get to save vs those 5% hits, right?

If not, then yes, saving throw abilities are a more dynamic form of percentages, depending on the context.

But whos to say we cant have both mechanics in the game?

Communard

Dice rolls are percentage-based chances, they are just disguised. If you need to roll a 13 or above on a d20 to hit, then you will hit 35% of the time. ALL D&D rules are based on percentage-based chance abilities, it is just convenient to use die in physical RP games.

Space_hamster

Of course another question to ponder is if the virtual dice in BG are fair or loaded.

On the other hand, it might just be easier and more fun to suspend your disbelief in simulated random chance.

Dino

I think what VedwintheTyrant is trying to say is that Abilities that allow for savingthrows has different chances of success depending on who you face (resistances and whatnot).

Flat percentages, on the other hand, is just that; flat percentages.
(Although, I was under the impression that %-modifiers allowed for saves as usual anyway, so the point might be moot)

Space_hamster

I agree with that. There is a wide degree of variability.

Tetraploid

VedwintheTyrant said:

17-20 on a d20 tells me that within the rules of the game system there's a substantial minority of instances when a result will occur. 20% tells me that in 100 instances of the game calling on the function in question 20 results will be positive. It also tells me that because that probability exists in a macroscopic scale my own experience of it will be affected by large scale variations in probability. I could be playing the 1:10000 chance game where every time the game calls that function it returns a negative result, even though in the average of 100000 games the probability is still 20%. I prefer the former because it aligns with all the other premises I've accepted in order to play the game.

You're still not making sense! 17-20 on a d20 is the SAME probability as 20 results out of 100. However the probability is expressed, you could still be that unlucky person who always rolls less than 17 on a d20 or always gets a negative result for the percentage. In fact, I imagine that in terms of computer processing, the function is likely to be exactly the same whether the game interface calls it d20 or a percentage. You're arguing over what something is called, not over what it actually IS. Probability doesn't care whether you express it as whole numbers or fractions or decimals or percentages. 17-20 on a d20 = 20% = 0.2 = 1/5th. It's all the same!

jhart1018

Usually a percentage based special ability on a weapon is one of many perks to carrying that weapon. There's an axe (I think) in ToB that has a % chance to decapitate whoever it strikes. On top of that, it's also a +4 axe that also does fire damage and some other stuff. (Forgive me if I'm mixing my items, but the point I'm making should still be valid.) My choice to put that weapon in a character's hands usually revolves around the constant abilities of the weapon, not the % chance perks.

That said, other posters have mentioned, everything concerning dice rolls is, essentially, a % chance. It's the way 2nd edition D&D expressed difficulty. A level 2 thief might be able to unlock chests about half the time. The other half of the time, he/she can't figure it out. A level 8 thief can pretty much unlock anything. A level 2 fighter is going to need a miracle to save against a spell cast by a level 20 mage. A level 2 mage is going to need similar divine intervention to have a spell damage a level 20 anything.

Everything in the game is based around percents, probabilities, and statistics. It's all math, cleverly disguised as an amazing, incredibly fun game. Part of playing it, as others have pointed out, is giving yourself the best odds to accomplish whatever goal you have in mind.

TJ_Hooker

Mmk, my best guess as to what the OP is talking about:
While each dice roll has an equivalent percentage attached to it, the dice roll is more tied to in-game factors, or at least can be perceived that way.

For example, lets say an ememy has a saving throw of 6, so he has to roll 6 or higher to make a save against some effect, meaning a roll from 1-5 will result in him being affected. This would be the same as the caster having a 25% chance to affect the enemy. But with the dice roll, you know that the odds are based on the current enemy you're facing, and next time it may be different. So it's kind of like taking into account the toughness of your oponent in determining if you'll succeed. If you were given a fixed percentage of success, it would be like the outcome isn't tied to the current situation, and is instead determined by some cosmic Force of Probability or something.

So you could think of the dice roll being a way of representing harder or easier enemies/situations. The percentage chance could be seen as invoking some abstract idea of probability to determine whether you succeed or not, which could be immersion-breaking to some people.

I'm not saying I agree with the OP, and I actually find this whole idea a little weird, but this is how I've interpreted what he's saying.

Schneidend

A percentage is rolled with percentile dice. That's not outside the scope of D&D mechanics in the least. Tons of tables in D&D manuals are "d100" rolls.

Rapscallion

TJ_Hooker said:

Mmk, my best guess as to what the OP is talking about:
While each dice roll has an equivalent percentage attached to it, the dice roll is more tied to in-game factors, or at least can be perceived that way.

For example, lets say an ememy has a saving throw of 6, so he has to roll 6 or higher to make a save against some effect, meaning a roll from 1-5 will result in him being affected. This would be the same as the caster having a 25% chance to affect the enemy. But with the dice roll, you know that the odds are based on the current enemy you're facing, and next time it may be different. So it's kind of like taking into account the toughness of your oponent in determining if you'll succeed. If you were given a fixed percentage of success, it would be like the outcome isn't tied to the current situation, and is instead determined by some cosmic Force of Probability or something.

So you could think of the dice roll being a way of representing harder or easier enemies/situations. The percentage chance could be seen as invoking some abstract idea of probability to determine whether you succeed or not, which could be immersion-breaking to some people.

I'm not saying I agree with the OP, and I actually find this whole idea a little weird, but this is how I've interpreted what he's saying.

That's the way I interpreted it, as I described above. Shame the TC hasn't come in to clarify.