[Classicmerp] GURPS Normal Distribution Curve vs Linear Approaches

[Lev Lafayette]

On Mon, December 23, 2013 8:07 pm, Michael Cole wrote:
>
> And IMO, it /shouldn't/ be the same effect for all.  And this is the
> fundamental point on which it all rests.  If you have a high skill in
> (say) archery, then its not just that you are better then the other guy,
> its that negative effects don't have as much of a negative impact on you
> as they do on the other guy.  And then once you get to the point that
> you are crap, then you are just crap, and you can't get much worse.  I'm
> not going to argue the numbers, as its not that important, but I agree
> with the underlying principle.

But it *is* the same effect (let's not engage in a naturalistic fallacy,
where what ought to be the case is confused with what is the case).

A target at 20 yards is a target at 20 yards no matter what skill level
the shooter has. A highly skilled person is still much more likely to hit
the target, a poorly skilled one is less, but effect remains the same.

There certainly isn't any justification (as one gets with normal
distribution) to punish the person who is *average*, whilst providing
minimal differences to high and low skilled characters doesn't make sense.

> *Realism*: It does make sense.  The better you are, the better you can
> cope with problems.  At point blank range, the sniper may be a little
> better that the common grunt, but at long range, he is a hell of a lot
> better.  Anyone can drive on a normal road at roughly the same level of
> expertise, but when you get in a Formula One car, then driving skill
> differences will become really apparent.  The skill level effects should
> _not _be linear.

That's because the effects *are* linear, not in spite of it. A linear
effect at a long range (say -10 modifier) means that an unskilled or
minimally skilled individual can't hit their target at all (except on a
critical success), whereas a high skilled character still has a reasonably
good chance.

> *Playability*: This is when it becomes useful.  Because you can use
> these numbers to change the potential results by use of the
> environment.  If you are better at ranged weapons than the other guy,
> then you should be fighting at extended range as it will be better for
> you.  If he is better than you, then you should get in close so that the
> skill discrepancy is not as noticeable.  If you have linear skills, then
> it totally removes this part of simulation, and to my mind, that makes
> it weaker, and is a distinct drawback of D20 systems.

Playability means that you can get a result for the action faster and
easier. If anything (as Karl mentioned in his article) d20 is slightly
more playable than 3d6, because the result is immediately apparent.

So not only is this not an issue of playability, it isn't true. A
character who is excellent at ranged combat is still going to be excellent
at ranged combat whether you use 3d6 or d20 (again, referring to Karl's
article, one would need to shift critical values to more extreme points
e.g., 1 and 20), but apart from that the claim that moving to a d20
"totally removes this part of the simulation" is hyperbolic.

> The better sword skill really should come to the fore when situations
> are against you.  Fight them of a swaying bridge - its going to bother
> them more than you.  And if you are really crap, then go the whole way -
> pitch black room with an uneven floor and a loud boom-box blaring.  If
> the environment is that bad, then it becomes more of a crap-shoot, and
> the advantages of skill should be very much diminished.  You cannot do
> this with linear skills.

Again, simply not true. You can apply a sufficient number of negative
modifiers to characters so that they're only chance of success is pure
luck on both a 3d6 or a d20 system. I'm sure you can imagine this.

-- 
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech
Mngmnt) (Chifley)
mobile:  0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
http://www.quicksales.com.au/shop/RPG-Review.aspx