Timeline for How can I simplify a series of rolls without changing probability too heavily?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2014 at 2:47 | comment | added | Kyle Willey | I never really found a solution to this. Long story short, it looks like it's not really possible to simplify down rolls without changing the probability except in certain circumstances, in which case the simplification is not only one-way but also going to make play more complex with lots of "Wait, I forgot, if they have three defenses which algorithm do I use?". I've been learning PHP, though, so with my new side-project I may go back and try making my own calculators to see if there are any good relatively faithful methods of probability simplification. | |
| Jan 12, 2014 at 17:01 | comment | added | GMNoob | @KyleWilley Did you ever find a solution. I like this solution, and I would just add that you don't roll at all if it's impossible to defend. | |
| Jul 29, 2012 at 3:46 | comment | added | Kyle Willey | True, but I'm not entirely happy with the fact that fringe cases could allow someone with a rating 9 roll to block an attack that rolled higher than they can hope to reach. | |
| Jul 28, 2012 at 3:01 | comment | added | Neal Tibrewala | Something like that yes. Think about it, if you really have every countermeasure in the game, something should work. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 23:20 | comment | added | Kyle Willey | So, wait; let me see if this is right? Roll to see if you succeed with whatever your best skill is. If you fail, then roll on a 1d8, and if it comes up relative to any ability you have that is valid you automatically succeed? | |
| Apr 29, 2012 at 6:01 | history | answered | Neal Tibrewala | CC BY-SA 3.0 |