Page 1 of 1

Tests of 50:50 via PSS?

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:17 am
by AsenRG
Something I'm not quite sure about, is the chance of paper, stone, scissors (PSS) actually 50:50? Sure, it is so on the surface, but with repeated PSS games, player skill becomes increasingly more important.
Does anyone have experience in using it as a method for resolution?

Other than that, I like the system more than I expected, and can see running or playing a campaign with it, despite it being lightweight. And I generally reserve lightweight systems for shorter games.
Although in the combat chapter, it might have been better to have a bit more rules for the effects of an armlock, especially regarding the winner going into a killing mode after securing the lock. Or maybe it's better left to ad hoc decisions, still not sure about that. I guess too much depends on the GM and group there.
Finally, have you considered giving to each of the different modes of combat a +1 bonus against another :mrgreen: ?

Re: Tests of 50:50 via PSS?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:42 am
by kingbv
Yes, skill can play a part in Rock, Paper Scissors, but not so much that I would disallow it if it's the players preferred type of 50-50s. It's not like it's arm wrestling or solving quadratic equations where one person is likely to win almost all the time.

I rolled dice for 50-50s because that's what I had and it was the easiest and quickest.

>Other than that, I like the system more than I expected,

Thanks!

>Finally, have you considered giving to each of the different modes of combat a +1 bonus against another ?

I did think about it briefly, yes, but I decided it was better to have each combat style have an equal chance of winning against any other combat style.

Re: Tests of 50:50 via PSS?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:01 pm
by AsenRG
Clearly, our estimates on the role of skill in RPS varies.
That aside, is there a mechanical reason to give each combat style have an equal chance of winning against any other combat style, or is it mostly preference? Of course, I'm wondering whether it would break anything if I allowed it as a houserule!

Re: Tests of 50:50 via PSS?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:03 pm
by kingbv
[quote]]is there a mechanical reason to give each combat style have an equal chance of winning against any other combat style, or is it mostly preference?[/quote

Mostly it has to do with the style of gameplay I was trying to encourage, of trying to give Seeker characters powers that are subtle but useful I an wide range of circumstances (as opposed to IDA for instance, where I tried to give characters really powerful powers, but powers that had a lot of flaws, limitations and side effects). Also, I wanted to make ORC-L as simple as possible, and having to remember which styles have a penalty against which would increase the complexity.

And also, mechanically, it's hard to give a small penalty in ORC-L, so even a one-point penalty or bonus will be fairly significant.

Other than those things, I don't see why you shouldn't adopt this as a home rule. What styles were you thinking should do better or worse against which other styles?

Re: Tests of 50:50 via PSS?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:58 am
by AsenRG
kingbv wrote:
]is there a mechanical reason to give each combat style have an equal chance of winning against any other combat style, or is it mostly preference?[/quote

Mostly it has to do with the style of gameplay I was trying to encourage, of trying to give Seeker characters powers that are subtle but useful I an wide range of circumstances (as opposed to IDA for instance, where I tried to give characters really powerful powers, but powers that had a lot of flaws, limitations and side effects). Also, I wanted to make ORC-L as simple as possible, and having to remember which styles have a penalty against which would increase the complexity.

And also, mechanically, it's hard to give a small penalty in ORC-L, so even a one-point penalty or bonus will be fairly significant.

Other than those things, I don't see why you shouldn't adopt this as a home rule. What styles were you thinking should do better or worse against which other styles?

I think 1 point might be good, but maybe add it as a weapon? And slightly more complex wouldn't phase me or my group, so it might work, theoretically. It's mostly a thought exercise anyway, since I'm looking more for a FWTD game, and that's ORC-C, despite the systems being easy to substitute for each other.

In theory, however, my idea was to have Kill being trumped by Maim, Maim being trumped by Strike and Parry, S&P being trumped by Control, and Kill trumping Control. Mostly, that's the Tiger-Snake-Crane triangle, with Kill being added to make it a four-stages cycle.
And I'm still wondering what should happen if anyone wants to use a damaging move after winning Control, or to keep struggling after losing to a Control user.

Re: Tests of 50:50 via PSS?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:01 am
by kingbv
And I'm still wondering what should happen if anyone wants to use a damaging move after winning Control, or to keep struggling after losing to a Control user.


If you have someone in a hold by Winning a round of control, and try to hurt them, I'd call it an automatic success. Anything less would make Control too weak compared to the other styles.

Re: Tests of 50:50 via PSS?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:01 pm
by AsenRG
kingbv wrote:
And I'm still wondering what should happen if anyone wants to use a damaging move after winning Control, or to keep struggling after losing to a Control user.


If you have someone in a hold by Winning a round of control, and try to hurt them, I'd call it an automatic success. Anything less would make Control too weak compared to the other styles.

A chance to basically insta-win, and probably not get hurt significantly in the process, isn't exactly what I'd call weak!