|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 27, 2017 4:54:50 GMT -6
Same numbers. with color n stuff.  |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 27, 2017 5:26:18 GMT -6
I like it. So if I'm reading this correctly, the attackers are organized based on their percent change of killing any random opponent on the FCT?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 29, 2017 19:04:42 GMT -6
Thanks for your interest Starbeard. Yes, the attackers are arranged in descending over of overall attack capability (the mean probability of beating any opponent, assuming all opponents occur equally frequently). Note that the defenders are also arranged in descending over of overall defense capability (the mean probability of not being beaten by any opponent, assuming all opponents occur equally frequently). Notice especially that attackers and defenders are not arranged in the same order, because some figures are better at attacking than they are at defending, or vis versa. IMHO this representation clearly illustrates the gap between (what I'll call) the "heroic" types and the "super heroic" types. One might also choose to see a second (albeit not quite so obvious) gap between dragons and "the rest". IMHO, the color coding helps to identify attack/defender pairs which buck the general trend. These are some of the more interesting relationships on the FCT. I.e., wights/ghouls are particularly resilient to wraiths and troll/ogres; elementals are especially vulnerable to wraiths; and so on. You can read this in the original FCT, of course. The color and positioning in this version just makes it more obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 30, 2017 5:34:15 GMT -6
That paints a very compelling picture. It certainly shows that Gygax put a lot of thought into the FCT numbers - more than I would have guessed based on a just a visual observation of the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 30, 2017 6:54:22 GMT -6
Sure, if by "thought" you mean things like, "That troll attack seemed a little weak. I'm'a bump up his number by one."
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 30, 2017 8:46:59 GMT -6
Sure, if by "thought" you mean things like, "That troll attack seemed a little weak. I'm'a bump up his number by one." I realize you're not arguing to this, but I just wanted say that I think the way the numbers were handled can still be considered "putting a lot of thought into it." It's just a different kind of thought, made over a longer period of time, than what most of us usually think of whenever the debate on where D&D got its numbers pops up. For starters, not all creatures are as tough defensively as they are offensively; nor do they perform with the same relative strength against different types of opponents. Why would ents vs ents only need 7+, but dragons vs dragons need 8+, and wizards vs wizards need 10+? Why do wraiths quick-kill elementals, and elementals vs wizards quick-kill each other, yet wizards quick-kill wraiths? To me that looks like specific intent, even if it was developed through adjustments during actual play on a case by case basis. One thing that would interest me is trying to locate where these anomalies reflect Gygax's fantasy reading, like LotR being the obvious rationale behind the balrog vs wizard balance, and where they were developed simply because it felt right during the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 30, 2017 18:19:15 GMT -6
I dunno what most of us think. I know there are some people who think the Chainmail and D&D tables were constructed according to mathematical principles. Some think they carefully model some sort of behavior, either real or fictional. And then there's what really happened, according to every statement the designers ever made on the subject: they threw together some numbers based on gut feelings and a bit of literary or historical precedent. Analysis of the tables might bring some interesting conclusions about game play, but they won't tell you anything about the systems the designers had in mind, because they didn't have any.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 30, 2017 18:39:56 GMT -6
Hey Ways, I'm waiting for the Elf with magic sword to be added. What gives?  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 1, 2017 11:30:01 GMT -6
....then there's what really happened, according to every statement the designers ever made on the subject: they threw together some numbers based on gut feelings and a bit of literary or historical precedent. .... Huh, that's an eyebrow raiser. Perhaps you could you cite an example of one of these designer statements? Quotes like this one, "...D&D is a game. It's rules are designed and published so as to assure a balanced and cohesive whole. Each segment has been considered and developed so as to fit with the other parts. Each part, meshing with the others, provides an amusing diversion, a game which is fun to play and set so as to provide maximum enjoyment for as long a period of time as possible. Each separate part must be viewed as some thing which contributes to the whole. Pulling this or that section from the body and criticizing it is totally invalid unless the workings of that particular segment do not harmonize with the whole, thus causing the entire game to be unenjoyable. That the vast majority of players agree with this view is evident. There are very few who attempt to insert dissimilar rules into a system which was carefully designed to work on precepts totally at odds with what the would-be designer views as crucial to making DUNGEONS & DRAGONS a “good” game...." (Gygax, Dragon Mag #16, p15), don't seem to lend much credence to your case. I don't have time at the moment to go back through Gygax's Dragon mag articles, books and such, but I can't think of any "statement" from Gygax or Arneson supportive of your claim. Finding statements that suggest the opposite wasn't too difficult though. In fact, it seems to me that Gygax always went to some length crunching numbers, calculating variables and massaging tables in all the games he worked on, from Tractics to Legendary Adventures. So I think we need more than just your say so that the published tables and such found in CHAINMAIL and D&D were something they just "threw together" in the manner you describe. While I certainly don't think D&D or CHAINMAIL is as pefectly harmonized as Gygax claimed, I do think a lengthy effort and thought lies behind the design. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 1, 2017 13:48:37 GMT -6
Okay, I'll concede that the Dragon Magazine version of Gary Gygax claimed that his rules were inviolate and nigh perfection. We all know how reliable that source is. But I've been asking and watching people ask the originals this very question for years and have always gotten the same answer: there was no system involved; it was whatever played right. And no, I haven't collected an index of these people saying this thing, so I can't quote them. Go ask them yourself.
My very first question to a TSR alumnus ever was Frank Mentzer on AOL, in which I asked how the saving throw chart's numbers were chosen. His answer? It was whatever felt right after a bit of play-testing. Sorry, that was in the mid-90s and I don't have a copy of the text.
Go ask Gronan—he's going to name a whole book after the principle. Go ask Tim Kask. Go ask Dave Megarry or Jeff Perrin, for cryin' out loud. Heck, go look at stuff Gary wrote on EN World or Dragonsfoot.
Or you can believe the Earth is flat that Gary carefully calculated all those numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 2, 2017 6:22:08 GMT -6
Hey Ways, I'm waiting for the Elf with magic sword to be added. What gives? Elves are not genuinely comparable to the rest cos a) they have no defensive values on the FCT, and b) they lack attack values vs. a handful of opponents. Thus their average attack capability is not an average across the same figures as the others. You have two options if you want to add Elves to the above. First option is to assume that elves require an impossible throw of 13 vs. dragons, elements, rocs, and ents. If you do this, then elves are 21.37% likely to kill a random opponent, putting them way down the bottom between wights/ghouls and trolls/ogres. Second option is to compare elves to the other types across only the subset of opponents that elves can attack on the FCT. If you do this, then elves attack capability lies between lycanthropes and rocs. Neither method seems entirely fair, so I left them off. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 2, 2017 15:44:29 GMT -6
The second option in it's limited attack capabilities is what I was curious about. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 3, 2017 11:19:16 GMT -6
.... My very first question to a TSR alumnus ever was Frank Mentzer on AOL, in which I asked how the saving throw chart's numbers were chosen. His answer? It was whatever felt right after a bit of play-testing. Sorry, that was in the mid-90s and I don't have a copy of the text. <shrug> What Frank may have said regarding his tweeks to existing tables in the production of the BECMI set has no bearing on the production of the initial Gygax/Arneson design a decade earlier. What Frank may have thought about how Gygax and Arneson designed elements of D&D, years before he became involved with the game, has no bearing either. It's irrelevant. Go ask Gronan—he's going to name a whole book after the principle. Mike was a player, not a designer, of D&D, nevertheless I never doubted Mikes sentiment that "They made up some shirt they thought would be fun" (paraphrase). I do however doubt that making something up precludes thoughtful consideration, deliberately developed interrelationships, and parameter/goal based refinement. I personally never understood Mike to be implying that Gygax was a haphazard, seat-of-the-pants game designer, which I think is what you are suggesting. By comparison, the exact same statement could be made of nearly any fantasy work. Tolkien, like Gygax, made up some shirt he thought was fun, based in part, as you mentioned, on literary precedents. That is not to say that Tolkien didn't take some pains to refine his made up shirt to ensure that it conformed to his own invented standards. Go ask Tim Kask. Go ask Dave Megarry or Jeff Perrin, for cryin' out loud. Heck, go look at stuff Gary wrote on EN World or Dragonsfoot. I'm far, - very far - from agreeing that you would find the support you imagine from the rest of the names you list, but it's also not particularly enlightening to ask people who weren't directly involved in the design of the game, about what exactly went in to the design of the game. Perrin was the only person mentioned with authorial credit, but only the draft of the CHAINMAIL mass battles section. He had nothing to do with the FCT. He's also never said anything like you are claiming. Heck, go look at stuff Gary wrote on EN World or Dragonsfoot. I'm not impressed by an unspecific appeal to "stuff" Gary wrote. I have read fairly carefully all of Gary's quotes on Enworld. Dragonsfoot, and any number of interviews etc., and I don't recall seeing statements suggesting he "threw together some numbers based on gut feelings" or that Gygax lacked any"systems the designers had in mind, because they didn't have any". Stormcrow you are the one making a significant, sweeping claim that seems to be counterfactual and thus far, unsubstantiated. Or you can believe the Earth is flat that Gary carefully calculated all those numbers. I'm not interested in believing anything. I'm a scientist. My interest is following the facts to best fit conclusions. When I look at the chart WoTE made, I observe a clear grouping of monsters into two divisions; one heroic, the other superheroic, with nearly 25% difference between the two. It takes no faith to recognize that separation is purposeful. If there is any faith being exercised here, it is in claiming WoTE's table is all a result of happenstance and "gut feeling" and "systemless" design. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 3, 2017 15:10:54 GMT -6
Second option is to compare elves to the other types across only the subset of opponents that elves can attack on the FCT. If you do this, then elves attack capability lies between lycanthropes and rocs. Neither method seems entirely fair, so I left them off. Sorry Ways, I read your response again and it had me wondering. You did mean that you looked at the averages among all the limited list of opponents associated with the Elf with magic sword, against each other, right? This would result in different averages for all those listed, but also give a gross idea of an elves standing in the mix. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 4, 2017 4:57:24 GMT -6
Sorry Ways, I read your response again and it had me wondering. You did mean that you looked at the averages among all the limited list of opponents associated with the Elf with magic sword, against each other, right? This would result in different averages for all those listed, but also give a gross idea of an elves standing in the mix. Yes, that is what I meant derv. Against only the nine fantastic types that Elves can combat on the FCT, the mean probabilities of beating an opponent are as follows: Wraith 23.77%, Troll/ogre 25.31%, Wight/ghoul 26.54%, Hero 27.78%, Lycanthrope 30.56%, Elf with magic sword 30.86%, (gap), Wizard 44.14%, Roc 46.91%, Giant 48.46%, Ent 53.40%, Superhero 55.25%, Elemental 55.86%, Balrog 59.57%, Dragon 63.89%. Despite these numbers the elf is still ineffective against dragons, elementals, rocs, and ents. |
|
