[Classicmerp] GURPS Normal Distribution Curve vs Linear Approaches

[Lev Lafayette]

On Tue, December 24, 2013 9:03 am, Lev Lafayette wrote:
> 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).

Actually, apropos this one thing that should be mentioned is that very
weirdly, GURPS uses a normal distribution for chances of success, but a
linear distribution for effects *sometimes*.

e.g., the modification penalty for a target varies according to the basic
skill roll of the shooter. If they are using a bow to hit their target
(thr+3, e.g., 1d6+3) it is linear, but if it is an assault rifle it uses a
normal distribution (e.g., 7d6).

Now this is obviously a side-effect of using a "bucket of dice" approach
to determine damage with modern weapons, but for a low-tech game the
effect does mean that in most cases damage is linear when (in this case)
it should be according to a normal distribution.

Of course the other side is that apart from (a) criticals and (b) damage
there is no graduated effect. Either you succeed or you don't.

-- 
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