[Classicmerp] GURPS Normal Distribution Curve vs Linear Approaches

[Michael Cole]

On 24/12/2013 3:24 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
> On Tue, December 24, 2013 11:27 am, Michael Cole wrote:
>> But basically, no it is not the same effect.  The cause is the same, i.e,
>> the range has increased, but the effect that that will have on an
>> individual shooter will vary according to how good they are at coping with
>> that increase in range.  Their level of accuracy will not drop off at the
>> same rate.
> How do you know it won't? I really don't see this through reading through
> the markmanship and distinguished shooter awards of the US army, for
> example.
OK.  Lets start with the target at about point blank range.  At a point 
where Doofus the Recruit should be able to hit it at about 95% of the 
time.  Lets say that Sharpie the Marksman now has 99% - hey, he could miss.

Now lets move the target back far enough so that it is now even money 
for Doofus to hit - 50%.  You are arguing that at that range, Sharpie 
should now only be able to hit the target at 54% of the time.  Its not 
about whether or not you can hit the target, its about how often you can 
do it.

>> Another example - two people drag racing, one a professional driver, the
>> other not.  Throw in a sharp curve.  The curve will have a far greater
>> effect on the non-professional than the professional - the decrease in
>> ability to keep the car moving sfaely at speed will not be linear.  The
>> cause is the same, the effect is not.
> The main difference is that the expert *knows* how much they need to slow
> down, when to break, where the apex point is, etc. This knowledge is
> reflecting in their skill rating. The effect of the corner can still be
> same, and the effect on their base skill level will also be the same, but
> because of their high general rating they're able to take these modifiers
> and still succeed.
Anyone can still succeed.  That's not the question here.  Its how often 
they will succeed.  And they will succeed much more often (not just 
slightly more often) than the amateur.

> That's what having a high skill level represents - the
> ability to make contingencies under difficult circumstances.
No, high skill level means that you can now do simple stuff in your 
sleep - difficult stuff is slightly less difficult that it was before, 
but it is still difficult.  Lets take lock-picking.  Lets say that at 
beginning level, simple locks are at around 60%, tough at 50%.   You 
improve.  Simple locks are now at 90%, tough will be at 60%.  At some 
point as you increase in level, simple stuff will be come routine, but 
difficult will still remain difficult - not as difficult as before, but 
still difficult.  Your skill (in other words, the amount of time it will 
take you on average to unlock them) with simple compared to difficult 
locks will /not increase //at the same rate/.

> And none of these examples resolves the fundamental problem with normal
> distribution that negative modifiers punish people of average ability
> dramatically more than people of high or low ability - which is just
> silly.

Low ability being effectively less than a 10?  As in defaulting, or just 
plain crap?  As in they don't really have that far to fall?  If you 
skill at a _base chance_ is less than 50% then you don't have low 
ability - you suck at that task.  Its not that skill which will allow 
you to do the task, its sheer blind luck.  Odds are that you will fail 
far more than you succeed.

Note here that I am not arguing that the numbers all work out - sure, we 
could fix the numbers.  But a linear system would be even more broken - 
that is what I am arguing.  The key point is that as you get better, 
simple stuff becomes extremely simple, difficult stuff becomes only 
slightly less difficult.

BTW, you are famous.  Read this 
<http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=1490660>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mimesisrpg.com/pipermail/classicmerp_mimesisrpg.com/attachments/20131224/56fc134d/attachment.htm>