Public TN (again) and uncertainty

[MathHare]

Hi there! New DM here.

Last week I ran my first through the breach game. It was fun and there was no big problem at any point, although there was a point I did not how to handle and I wanted to ask how you do it.

I know TN of duels is to be public always so the fated can choose to cheat fate but my problem appears when, as an example, the fated wonder if they are been followed (and they are not). The approach I would use in other systems is to ask the players to roll and then tell them they see none following them. By doing this, the players have the tension of not really knowing if they are been followed (although they may feel sure up to some level, depending on how high did they roll).

I feel this should be some kind of opposed duel against the follower, but since there is none, by having public TN, the fated know none is following them before they flip any card.

How do you handle this kind of situation?

Thank you for your help

[Nikshe]

1. You can actually say that no one is following them without any checks (checks are for IMPORTANT things only).

2. You can create some unimportant follower like street thief who wants to steal a Fated's purse and do a short encounter (use players' ideas).

[solkan]

The other alternative is to make it an ongoing challenge.  Because, really, "Are we being followed?" isn't the sort of question you can answer by just stopping and looking around before continuing.  (At best, it just tells you whether you can spot anyone suspicious looking.  The secret agent is looking for someone else, but you don't know that.  😎)

• If there's no one following the players, give them an arbitrary difficulty rating roughly corresponding to their level of paranoia.
• If there IS someone following the players, give them a difficulty rating based on the corresponding ratings.  (Although probably use their paranoia level as an alternative minimum TN still).

and look at the Gathering Information event for examples about how it can wrong.  For example, they go along and they become convinced that some person who's completely innocent is following them (and they end up attracting attention because of they freaked this person out).

And, probably more importantly, ask the players which they'd rather do in the challenge:  "Do you want to get to wherever without being followed, or do you want to know whether you're being followed right now?"  Because "Get wherever you're going without being followed" is a lot more straight forward, and if the players are really paranoid they'll catch the emphasis on "Do you want to know whether you're being followed right now?" doesn't say they won't be followed later.  😎

Edit:  If you've got Into the Steam or some of the adventures, you should look at ongoing challenges like "Avoiding Patrols".  Because a lot of the time, someone asking "Were we being followed?" really should be asked "Just how suspicious/conspicuous do you think you look right now?"  

[MathHare]

I kind of like the idea of the ongoing challenge. It allows my players to do some nice narrative while it still maintainces the tension.

I will look for those examples, I have the Into the Steam book, but I haven't read it yet. Since is my first time playing TTB I wanted to keep it into the basic book.

We will be playing again (or I hope so) in two weeks, I will try your idea there

[LeperColony]

The issue with the public and fixed TN system has been debated on the forums before.  Some people, like myself, prefer variable TN by turning them into contested duels (both sides flip).  This actually used to be an optional rule in 1st ed, not sure if it still technically an optional rule in 2nd (not that it really matters).

[StefMcGlen]

You could not share a public TN with the group, you are the FM and it is well within your power to adjust the written rules for your purposes where it suits the scenario. In this case I would personally inform the group that your intention is not to share a TN with them on this occasion, its then down to them to chance at taking a Duel or not, how much notice are they going to put into their surroundings?

[solkan]

On 5/5/2019 at 5:11 AM, StefMcGlen said:

You could not share a public TN with the group, you are the FM and it is well within your power to adjust the written rules for your purposes where it suits the scenario. In this case I would personally inform the group that your intention is not to share a TN with them on this occasion, its then down to them to chance at taking a Duel or not, how much notice are they going to put into their surroundings?

It’s within the rights of the players to close their books and leave in that situation.

Seriously, the entire point of having the Cheating Fate mechanic is so you’re not just chucking random cards and wishing for the best.

For the record, one of the previous discussions:

 

[StefMcGlen]

36 minutes ago, solkan said:

It’s within the rights of the players to close their books and leave in that situation.

Seriously, the entire point of having the Cheating Fate mechanic is so you’re not just chucking random cards and wishing for the best.

For the record, one of the previous discussions:

 

If the players are gonna throw up arms about it and leave it’s probably not in anyone’s interest they are in the group anyways.

I mentioned that it would be in interest to inform them on this occasion you are not giving a target number, if they insist to throw cards at it after that then that’s fine

 

its a role playing game, don’t get jumped up by it, in most role play games I’ve ever seen there’s been some kind of pop out or point in the book saying to do just that (including this one), adjust things to suit the situation. 

I didn’t realise there was a tournament scene for role playing and as such rules should be rigidly followed in case it upsets the meta gamer so I do apologise that my response isn’t reasonable for the global environment

 

[necroon]

12 minutes ago, StefMcGlen said:

If the players are gonna throw up arms about it and leave it’s probably not in anyone’s interest they are in the group anyways.

I mentioned that it would be in interest to inform them on this occasion you are not giving a target number, if they insist to throw cards at it after that then that’s fine

 

its a role playing game, don’t get jumped up by it, in most role play games I’ve ever seen there’s been some kind of pop out or point in the book saying to do just that (including this one), adjust things to suit the situation. 

I didn’t realise there was a tournament scene for role playing and as such rules should be rigidly followed in case it upsets the meta gamer so I do apologise that my response isn’t reasonable for the global environment

 

Although I don't necessarily agree with it and it does seem to be against the grain and theme of TTB, as well as  game related balance, what works for your table is what works for your table and that will always be a unique environment. I would first try and use the rule as is written and then talk to your players about how it feels - see if they also don't like it. Then together you can try it the way you've suggested and see how that feels to them, as well. It's perfectly normal for players and groups to come up with house-rules together to make their cooperative experience more enjoyable.

Over the many many years I have run various role-playing games I've found that the most important thing is transparency - make sure you tell a group that you may at some times be deviating from rule XYZ in the book so everyone has that expectation: open communication is important and, like you said,  while the rules are presented as the standard the rules of an RPG should never take precedent over what you need to do to tell your story alongside the players - just make sure you understand what effects on the game your changes may have and you'll be good to go. 

[ezramantis]

I'm all for having the occasional hidden TN (and in the situation above feel it adds to the game rather than detracts from it). The guys I game with are smart enough to know the odds based on cards in the deck and the typical range of modifiers. So they'll know when cheating leaves them with reasonable assurance that they're not being followed. With even a basic understanding that the possible flips are 1-13 anyone can guess whether it might be worth cheating just to be safe. If it's important enough that they not be followed, it should be worth the cheat card, reguardless of whether or not they know the TN. Is it a 5 important to them, or an 11?

It's often said that this rule system is more about narrative and less about "rules lawyering" or "power gaming" by those defending it's sometimes wishy washy explanations and guidance. Having an occasional hidden TN seems in line with this interpretation of the spirit of TTB. What better way to create a narrative of uncertainty than to have ACTUAL uncertainty?

If you think your players are the type to stage a revolution and storm out in a huff if you try to introduce a bit of occassional tension and uncertainty into the game, you could use margins of success and failure to "soften" the result. If the hidden TN is 10, maybe a margin of failure would allow them to make another check a few blocks closer to their destination, or give them a hint that doesn't tip them off one way or another.  A success would assure them they are (or are not) being followed. If your players are aware that this is how hidden TNs are handled at your table, it may not leave them feeling as uneasy about being denied that knowledge.

I do kinda like slokan's suggestion of using the "avoiding the patrols" ongoing challenge as an alternative.

[LeperColony]

Another way to ensure actual uncertainty and still maintain expectations in AV values is to use opposed flips rather than single flips against a static, known TN.

We've run the math on these forums before, and the figures are undisputed.  If you want every point of AV to have an equal significance, the easiest and clearest way to achieve that is to have both sides flip.

If you have an AV of 6, TNs of 10 or so have a 77% success rate, without counting Twist Decks, Talents or anything else that might improve the Fated's chances.  

Someone with a lower AV, say a 2, is far from useless against low TNs.  They'd have around a 46% chance of hitting TN 10.  Against low TNs, low AVs seem to compare a little unfairly with higher AVs, given what it takes to get higher values.  AV 6 is three times the value of AV 2, but it doesn't have three times the success rate. 

But at the higher TNs, low AVs have very little value, if not being virtually worthless.  Against the same TN 16 that is 31% for AV 6, an AV 2 has a 1.8% chance (that Red Joker).  So 1/3rd the value (AV 2 vs AV 6) has around 1/16th the chance of succeeding.  Does that seem to scale well?  Then there's the fact that anything beyond 16 is impossible, which renders the AV useless.  And more than that, anyone with AV 2 knows that anything 16 or higher is impossible, removing any sense of dramatic tension.

In an opposing TN system, every point of AV advantage ends up being roughly a 7.5% edge.  This is a straight linear progression.  In fixed TN, the value of AV 2 vs AV 6 can range from:

AV6 / AV2 vs TN 10:  77% v 46%

AV6 / AV2 vs TN 16: 31% v 1.8%

And all of this is before you consider that a deck of cards, unlike dice, has memory.  That is, the odds change based on the cards that remain in the deck.  Astute players know this, and will factor it in.  But of even greater concern is that it means actions can become impossible (or automatic) depending on the remaining cards.

For instance, once the Red Joker is flipped, anyone with AV 2 knows they will automatically fail any TN 16.  

TtB is a terrific setting, but its underlying mechanics are inconsistent and very gamey.

If you want to preserve dramatic tension and instill every point of AV with the same value, I suggest doing opposed flips (it also fixed some of the issues with magic, where the cast TN is less than the target's defense, and vice versa, you might as well always use immuto because you always know what you need).  Fated can use AV, whereas for NPCs you can either add their AV to the flip or their Rank Modifier, whichever you prefer as a GM (likely you'll use both at different times.  Less important NPCs you'll probably just use a generic rank modifier, whereas named NPCs you've compiled full stats for can use AV). 

[Adran]

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Someone with a lower AV, say a 2, is far from useless against low TNs.  They'd have around a 46% chance of hitting TN 10.  Against low TNs, low AVs seem to compare a little unfairly with higher AVs, given what it takes to get higher values.  AV 6 is three times the value of AV 2, but it doesn't have three times the success rate. 

Many of your points are interesting, but this one seems a little flawed, and I don't know if that's you using artistic license to make your point, or you not understanding it correctly.

Since the whole process is addition and subtraction the only thing that matters is the difference between the 2 AVs.  AV 5 might be 5 times AV 1, but it is no better than AV 5005 is better than AV5001 because they both have a difference of 4, so will have the same odds difference.  so comparing a 76% to 46% is as big an improvement as the 31% to 2% (I think you made a slight calculation error in your numbers. And using the extreme of needing the red joker does make the odds change not look so linear. If you looked at those 2 needing TNs of 9 and 15 you would see the percentage of fail would be the same, since each AV improves your chances of success by 7.4% in the fixed TN system as well). 

The opposed flips change your random number from a range of 0-14 to -14 to +14, but  they don't actually change the relative difference in TNs for your flip. (If you flip the card to set you a TN first, then its still exactly the same.) You just don't know the TN as you enter the duel so you don't know the value of your control hand.

[LeperColony]

6 hours ago, Adran said:

Many of your points are interesting, but this one seems a little flawed, and I don't know if that's you using artistic license to make your point, or you not understanding it correctly.

Since the whole process is addition and subtraction the only thing that matters is the difference between the 2 AVs.  AV 5 might be 5 times AV 1, but it is no better than AV 5005 is better than AV5001 because they both have a difference of 4, so will have the same odds difference.  so comparing a 76% to 46% is as big an improvement as the 31% to 2% (I think you made a slight calculation error in your numbers. And using the extreme of needing the red joker does make the odds change not look so linear. If you looked at those 2 needing TNs of 9 and 15 you would see the percentage of fail would be the same, since each AV improves your chances of success by 7.4% in the fixed TN system as well). 

The opposed flips change your random number from a range of 0-14 to -14 to +14, but  they don't actually change the relative difference in TNs for your flip. (If you flip the card to set you a TN first, then its still exactly the same.) You just don't know the TN as you enter the duel so you don't know the value of your control hand.

It's possible I wasn't clear enough, but what I am referencing is the difference in AV values relative to each other under fixed TN vs. opposed flips.

The AV 6 vs 2 figures were for fixed TN (I've gone back and colored them yellow for clarity in my original post), and my argument is that fixed TN values are not linearly reliable in value.  Hence the fact that the red joker makes the "odds change not look so linear" underlines my point.  In a fixed TN system, each point of AV advantage is not a flat 7.5% because the TN is a known quantity, and you are simply calculating the math of the number of cards for each AV to hit each TN.  This means at low TNs, low AVs will overperform vs high AVs (again, overperform is a metric measuring the relative value of each point of AV), and at high TNs, low AVs become virutally (or actually) worthless, whereas high AVs maintain considerable value.  This dynamic, where the value of each individual point of AV fluctuates based on the AV total, simply does not exist in opposed flips.

It's also not accurate to say that each AV in the 6 vs 2 does provide the same relative advantage:

To hit TN 10, AV 6 has (in a fresh deck) 41 cards.  41/54 = ~ 76%

To hit TN 10, AV 2 has (again, fresh deck) 25 cards.  25/54 =46%

Each relative point thus provides the higher value ~ 7.5% relative advantage.  So AV 6 has a ~30% edge for a 300% value.  

To hit TN 16, AV 6 has 17 cards.  17/54 = ~ 31%

To hit TN 16, AV 2 has 1 card.  1/54 = ~ 2%

Each relative point thus provides the higher value ~  7.3%.  So AV 6 has a ~28% edge for a 300% value.  Looks similar.  Except when you then look at the success chances. 

AV 6 will succeed only 1/3rd more often than AV 2 at TN 10, despite being 3x the value.

But AV 6 will succeed 16x more often than AV 2 at TN 16, despite only being 3x the value. 

And because the TN is fixed, these numbers will never change.

To put it another way, to hit TN 17:

AV 2:  0%

AV 6:  24%

We have an AV value difference of 4.  But we have a vast difference in the value of each point of AV.  This is why, under a fixed TN system, each point of AV does not operate in a strictly linear fashion, despite providing roughly the same 7.5%. 

Remember, in a fixed TN system, we are counting the number of remaining cards that gets us to a known number.  In opposed flips, we are taking a known value, adding a random value, and contrasting it with another known + random value.  

Additionally, fixed TN has the added downside of making actions either impossible or automatic, neither of which are desirable from either a mechanical or narrative standpoint.

The reason why AV values are a flat 7.5% advantage in opposed flips is because the value of each side's flip is not a known quantity, but lies within a range.  AV 6 has a 4 point advantage over AV 2, so it wins about 82% of the time.  But AV 2 is never irrelevant, and the relative value of each point for both sides is the same 7.5%.  If AV 2 were to go up to 3, then defeat is only ~75% likely and so on.

It's true you don't know the value of your control hand, but I count that as an advantage.  I see either automatic success or automatic failure as downsides of the fixed TN system, not upsides.

If you know you can expose Lucius and the entire Neverborn conspiracy if you can draw a 13, and you have a 13 in your hand, just go expose him.  That's not what I want from a game, personally.  

[Adran]

11 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

It's possible I wasn't clear enough, but what I am referencing is the difference in AV values relative to each other under fixed TN vs. opposed flips.

The AV 6 vs 2 figures were for fixed TN, and my argument is that fixed TN values are not linearly reliable in value.  Hence the fact that the red joker makes the "odds change not look so linear" underlines my point.  In a fixed TN system, each point of AV advantage is not a flat 7.5% because the TN is a known quantity, and you are simply calculating the math of the number of cards for each AV to hit each TN.  This means at low TNs, low AVs will overperform vs high AVs, and at high TNs, low AVs become virutally (or actually) worthless, whereas high AVs maintain considerable value.  This dynamic, where the value of each individual point of AV fluctuates based on the AV total, simply does not exist in opposed flips.

I still think that mathematically you are wrong.

Making the flip an opposed flip is, in effect, creating an unknown TN for your flip. But your flip, aiming for that TN will still have the same odds, and the same relative difference.

So the dynamic exists in in opposed flips just as much as it does in fixed TNs, its just less obvious to an observer.

In both cases the point of AV you have will typically give you the 7.4% improvement unless you are at the edge of the range, there is 1 point on each where there is the 1.8% difference, and continue along that route the next point does 0% difference. (iN the opposed duels you are unlikely to reach the region where things are impossible, but it does exist)

17 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

Additionally, fixed TN has the added downside of making actions either impossible or automatic, neither of which are desirable from either a mechanical or narrative standpoint.

I'm not sure I'd agree. there are plenty of automatic things that happen in RPGs I play that I don't make checks for.  If you know its automatic, then its just narrative. I don't make people take athletics checks to walk to the shops, I automatically assume they will succeed so force no checks. I know that's taking your argument to its extreme, but that's the sort of level task that would have a fixed TN lower than a stat.

[LeperColony]

49 minutes ago, Adran said:

I still think that mathematically you are wrong.

 

I'd never be one to claim mathematical perfection, so if you think the math is wrong, perhaps it would be helpful if you demonstrated your own scenario with figures.

49 minutes ago, Adran said:

I still think that mathematically you are wrong.

Making the flip an opposed flip is, in effect, creating an unknown TN for your flip. But your flip, aiming for that TN will still have the same odds, and the same relative difference.

Except it's not the same relative difference.  AV 6 will almost always have an expected advantage over AV 2 of ~ 82% in opposed flips.  The only exception is discussed below.  But as I've demonstrated, the relative value of AV 6 vs AV 2 is different in different situations.

49 minutes ago, Adran said:

In both cases the point of AV you have will typically give you the 7.4% improvement unless you are at the edge of the range, there is 1 point on each where there is the 1.8% difference, and continue along that route the next point does 0% difference. (iN the opposed duels you are unlikely to reach the region where things are impossible, but it does exist)

This is actually the next point in my favor.  

Cards have memory, dice don't. 

In a fixed TN system, low AVs are particularly vulnerable to having their relative value degraded by card loss.  

AV 2 vs High TNs

TN 16, 1 card 

TN 15, 5 cards

TN 14, 9 cards

Once the red joker is gone, TN 16 is impossible.  Once the red joker or any king is gone, AV 2 loses 20% of its success range versus TN 15.  Once the red joker or any king or queen is gone, AV 2 loses ~ 11% of its success range against TN 14, etc.

But AV 6 in these same situations is much less vulnerable.  One card gone at TN 16 is only a 6% reduction (1/17), at TN 15 it's 5% (1/21) at 14 it's 4% (1/25) etc. 

Now, you may say that AV 6 encounters the same high degradation eventually, and that's true, but you have to go up to TN 20.  And at TN 20, any AV less than 6 is useless.

From a basic mechanical standpoint, do you believe that AVs should ever be worthless?  Because I don't.  As cards are expended from the deck, lower AVs become increasingly consigned to a death spiral of failure. 

In opposed flips, with a fresh deck, it takes an AV difference of 14 before a low AV becomes worthless.  And as cards are removed, low AVs retain their value because the loss of a single card (except the jokers) impacts both sides equally (the math for this is actually really complicated, which in fact preserves the uncertainty because even astute players will have difficulty keeping track and calculating it).  

 

49 minutes ago, Adran said:

I'm not sure I'd agree. there are plenty of automatic things that happen in RPGs I play that I don't make checks for.  If you know its automatic, then its just narrative. I don't make people take athletics checks to walk to the shops, I automatically assume they will succeed so force no checks. I know that's taking your argument to its extreme, but that's the sort of level task that would have a fixed TN lower than a stat.

Automatic things you don't test for tend to be either necessary for narrative purposes or trivial.  If they are trivial, you often don't even test, so it doesn't matter.  And if it's automatic for narrative purposes, then no test should be needed.

That's not the same as knowing for a fact you can mathematically accomplish something that is supposed to be uncertain.  Again, this is a consequence of cards having memory.  If you know you need a TN, and you know for a fact you can hit it (or you know for a fact that you can't), then the action is automatic (or impossible) purely as a mechanical consequence, not a narrative one.

You've chosen to identify only trivial or narrative actions, and ridden right past my actual example.

And this is an issue opposed flips virtually eliminates (unless AV differences are absurdly stark), because even if the odds are greatly in favor of one side or the other, the random value adds uncertainty.   

[Adran]

I've never worked out a good way to express card odds, so sorry if it looks bad. (The card memory is what I can't show)

So I am trying to sow the difference in the chance of success for you having AV 6, vs you having AV 2.

Opponents total     Chance of success for AV 2 (%)    Chance of success for AV 6 (%)   Difference in chance of success

    5                                 83                                                100                                             17     

      6                                  76                                              100                                               34

      7                                   69                                                 98                                                29

     8                                  61                                                    91                                               30

     9                                  54                                                    83                                               29

    10                                 46                                                   76                                                30

    11                                 39                                                   69                                                30    

    12                                 31                                                   61                                               30

    13                                 24                                                  54                                                  30

     14                                 17                                                   46                                               29

   15                                 9                                                       39                                              30

  16                                  2                                                        31                                              29

  17                                  0                                                         24                                            24

  18                                   0                                                        17                                            17

 

This is odds based on 2 fresh decks. Odds based on an altered deck will be different, and yes you are right, they degrade at different rates, and I don't know how to show those alterations. But almost regardless of the result of the other side, the AV 2 has a 30% less chance of succeeding in the flip.

Because the 2 events of flipping a card are unconnected, it doesn't matter what the odds of the opponent reaching their total is for you to compare your chances of success with 2 different AVs. I don't know how to calculate the odds if you're making both flips from the same deck, and there will be some alteration, but its the same alteration as if that card had been used for something else. The fact its an opposed duel doesn't remove the fact the two random events are in connected for this purpose. But I do understand and hadn't considered your point that a high card is a high card for both sides if you're using the same deck for the duels.

This may well be my not taking into account the effects of it not being a fresh deck, and just how much altering the deck alters the odds.

27 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

You've chosen to identify only trivial or narrative actions, and ridden right past my actual example.

And this is an issue opposed flips virtually eliminates (unless AV differences are absurdly stark), because even if the odds are greatly in favor of one side or the other, the random value adds uncertainty.   

Sorry I couldn't think of a situation where I could ruin Lucius' plan with 1 single test, so I didn't treat it as a real example. (And from experience of malifaux and its opposed duels, I've seen plenty of times that holding the high card in hand is virtually garenteed success. Which isn't the same as garenteed, but is close enough that most players would still do it. ).

 

[LeperColony]

So I've only just realized that we may be perceiving the process of the flip differently, and though the process has no impact on the math, it does impact the decision making.

I see the flips as happening simultaneously, whereas I'm guessing you see them as the Fatemaster flips to obtain a value, which the Fated then tries to match.  In my own games, I use my own Fatemaster deck, so the flips are much closer to Malifaux.

As I said, the difference is not really mathematical, but if the flip value is not known before the Fated's flip, then all the uncertainty advantages I've pointed out hold.  But if not, then they don't. 

Though, even if the Fatemaster flips first, it does still widen the performance range for models, particularly in situations like combat, where you are flipping often.

It also makes it so that impossible or automatic events are much less likely (it's too complicated to say impossible).  And, perhaps more importantly, it makes it so that players knowing events are automatic or impossible is much less likely.

16 minutes ago, Adran said:

So I am trying to sow the difference in the chance of success for you having AV 6, vs you having AV 2.

Snipping your wonderful table just for readability, but I think it turned out really well (no sarcasm)!  And the numbers are the same as what I get, and they do a great job of showing what I'm saying.  Namely:

1)  Despite the fact that a range of ~30% is maintained over most values, as I've stated low AV over-performs at low TNs and under-performs at high TNs.

2)  The 30% difference is only one metric.  The other is the success chance as a ratio of the AV value.  Each AV point has a "cost," but the value a Fated gets for the investment changes in a non-linear fashion under Fixed TN, but not opposed flipping.

AV 6 will succeed only 1/3rd more often than AV 2 at TN 10, despite being 3x the value.

But AV 6 will succeed 16x more often than AV 2 at TN 16, despite only being 3x the value. 

If each point were worth a linear increase, we wouldn't see these swings.  

At this point I should say that fixed TNs do work mathematically (though they still have all the certainty issues) reasonably well at mid-ranges, and the biggest differences come at the margins.  However, as more and more of the deck is used up, more things become marginal for lower AVs.

30 minutes ago, Adran said:

Odds based on an altered deck will be different, and yes you are right, they degrade at different rates, and I don't know how to show those alterations.

<snip>

This may well be my not taking into account the effects of it not being a fresh deck, and just how much altering the deck alters the odds.

I think it would be far too complicated to show the degradations, but the fact that low AVs are particularly vulnerable underlines the fact that each point of AV does not hold the same relative value. 

It also underlines a critical difference between TtB and other fixed TN games that use dice, because cards are not the same as dice, and that's something a lot of fixed TN supporters fail to appreciate. 

33 minutes ago, Adran said:

 But I do understand and hadn't considered your point that a high card is a high card for both sides if you're using the same deck for the duels.

It actually doesn't matter if they use the same deck or not (and in fact, in my TtB campaign I don't).  Or, to be more accurate, it matters in subtle and complicated ways we can essentially handwave away.

Each high card that is gone from the low AV deck extends the range at which low AV loses value relative to high AV.  Now, losing low cards is advantageous for both high and low AVs.  Though obvious, this isn't irrelevant because as the deck thins, it changes the odds in strange ways.

For instance, imagine by some kind of fluke only 8+ cards remain in the deck.  That gives us 25 cards.

AV 2 automatically succeeds against anything 10 or less, but AV 6 auto succeeds against anything 14(!) or less.

Against TN 12, AV 2 is 17/25 or ~68%.  AV 6 is 100%.  

Against TN 15, AV 2 is 5/25, or ~ 20%.  AV 6 is 21/25, or ~84%  

The end result is we're seeing the relative value of the AVs change, and the fact is the relative values of the AV will be in continuous flux depending on the remaining cards.  Though this is also arguably true in opposed flips, the math on it is far more complicated to the point where even astute players aren't going to be able to figure it out (unless we're talking Rain Man).

47 minutes ago, Adran said:

Sorry I couldn't think of a situation where I could ruin Lucius' plan with 1 single test, so I didn't treat it as a real example. (And from experience of malifaux and its opposed duels, I've seen plenty of times that holding the high card in hand is virtually garenteed success. Which isn't the same as garenteed, but is close enough that most players would still do it. ).

 

You're almost certainly right that one flip is unlikely to bring down the Neverborn conspiracy.  But the fact remains that fixed TN systems allow for situations where the Fated can know, with absolute certainty, that an action is automatic (or impossible), and those scenarios are far less likely in opposed flips (particularly with different decks).

And while you're right there are Malifaux situations where players know they are overwhelmingly likely to succeed, the uncertainty element is important.  Especially as stakes increase.

The thing is, we want a system where players can reliably assess their chances.  Knowing they have a high or low likelihood to succeed should (and usually does) inform their choices.  But we (or at least I) don't want actions to be automatic or impossible purely by mechanics, and I also want AVs to function at a reliable, constant rate rather than be subject to the relative value indifference I've demonstrated.

[solkan]

 

Quote

You're almost certainly right that one flip is unlikely to bring down the Neverborn conspiracy.  But the fact remains that fixed TN systems allow for situations where the Fated can know, with absolute certainty, that an action is automatic (or impossible), and those scenarios are far less likely in opposed flips (particularly with different decks).

Answer one question:  Why bother using cards at all?  Each time the players go to do a flip, roll a D10, D12 or D20 instead.

Because that’s all you’re accomplishing, introducing a random element no one has any control over that will half the time make it pointless for the player to cheat fate.

Quote

And while you're right there are Malifaux situations where players know they are overwhelmingly likely to succeed, the uncertainty element is important.  Especially as stakes increase.

What do you think the point of the Cheat Fate mechanic is?  The cards aren’t just there to be weird dice substitutes.

Quote

The thing is, we want a system where players can reliably assess their chances.  Knowing they have a high or low likelihood to succeed should (and usually does) inform their choices.  But we (or at least I) don't want actions to be automatic or impossible purely by mechanics, and I also want AVs to function at a reliable, constant rate rather than be subject to the relative value indifference I've demonstrated.

I’m fairly certain you can play a very rewarding game with the Malifaux setting and dice.  Have you considered using the GURPS rules?

But this game is not designed for random target numbers.  

[LeperColony]

2 hours ago, solkan said:

 

Answer one question:  Why bother using cards at all?  Each time the players go to do a flip, roll a D10, D12 or D20 instead.

The same reason Malifaux does?

Suits allow for another level of granularity.

Cards are thematic.

You can store cards in a twist hand to cheat fate.

That cards have memory is an important part of the system, but you have to understand the implications of it.

Flipping cards is fun, and as the Fate Master I like doing it.

You're talking like opposed flips are somehow antithetical to the game, when they are the resolution system from the game that spawned TtB and they were an optional rule in the 1st ed Fatemaster's Almanac.  

2 hours ago, solkan said:

Because that’s all you’re accomplishing, introducing a random element no one has any control over that will half the time make it pointless for the player to cheat fate.

Random elements nobody has control over is actually not true, because you do have control (also, I'm not introducing it, I'm expanding it.  There's already a random element, the Fated's flip).  You can cheat fate.  What I'm actually accomplishing, but what you entirely fail to appreciate, is the following:

1)  Eliminating (or at least vastly reducing) the loss of relative value between different AVs.

2)  Vastly reducing the situations where an AV is worthless.

3)  Vastly reducing the situations where an action is known to be automatically successful before taking it.

Also, I have no clue why you think "half the time make it pointless for the player to cheat fate."  Any time your twist card + AV will exceed the opposing value, whether it's a fixed TN or a flip + value, it will be worth it to do it.

There's no math behind your statement, which is really what it comes down to.  I have a solution that preserves narrative uncertainty, the relative value of AVs and the ability to cheat.  Which I've demonstrated in black and white. 

You have "I don't like it."

Which, to be sure, is perfectly fine.  Everyone should use the system that works for them.  I'm just explaining why mine works for me, and the objective problems it resolves.

2 hours ago, solkan said:

What do you think the point of the Cheat Fate mechanic is?  The cards aren’t just there to be weird dice substitutes.

Again, I'm really confused why you think cheating fate doesn't work when both sides flip.  I know you play Malifaux, and it works there.

2 hours ago, solkan said:

I’m fairly certain you can play a very rewarding game with the Malifaux setting and dice.  Have you considered using the GURPS rules?

Why would I?  I enjoy the Malifaux system.  And that's what I'm using.

2 hours ago, solkan said:

But this game is not designed for random target numbers.  

It's an optional rule in the Fate Master's Almanac.  It was literally included in the design, and it is literally the base starting point for the entire system that existed before TtB.

I really don't understand why this concept offends you so much, but it always has.

If you don't mind the mathematical peculiarities of fixed TNs, and you don't care that players can know that an uncertain action is impossible or automatic, then yeah, you should be happy with the existing base rules.

But if you do mind wild fluctuations in the relative values of AV and you do think uncertainty is a narrative advantage, then maybe one solution is opposed flipping.

[Adran]

I was seeing the flips as simultaneous, but it makes no difference to the maths. It was just easier to show the effects on the probabilities on the one flip that matters if you are comparing how much better Av 6 is vs AV2. (Plus I have a friend that really likes to have his opponent flip first in opposed duels so he knows what he needs to flip. So it was in my mind).

I've not played any 2nd edition, and only a little 1st edition, but I always viewed the game as one where the Fate master tells the Story, and the Fated change it. With that mind set I didn't have a problem with the process that the Fate master has effectively picked which card they flipped each time, rather than be subject to Random chance. The opposed duel system works very much like the standard DnD style game. Its a shift in the emphisis of the background. (Do you give the Fate master a control hand? or are they literally just using their deck to provide the uncertainty?)

Your argument's about the relative change of fixed TNs vs opposed flips still sound flawed, possibly because you show how it changes for Fixed TNs and then don't say or show anything about opposed duels. You might be right, but I still see the opposed duel mathermatically the same as a duel against an unknown TN, so the relative power of the AVs is still the same. I could easily be missing something though, its harder for me to visualise the effects. If anything, you are showing how the change in the TN has a large effect on the power of the AV, and to me, the changes in the TN is something that happens more in the opposed system.

I can certainly see the reason players might want the uncertainty before they start the action, even if there are times that it means they actually had no chance, they just didn't know it.

 

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 8:08 PM, LeperColony said:

Random elements nobody has control over is actually not true, because you do have control (also, I'm not introducing it, I'm expanding it.  There's already a random element, the Fated's flip).  You can cheat fate.  What I'm actually accomplishing, but what you entirely fail to appreciate, is the following:

1)  Eliminating (or at least vastly reducing) the loss of relative value between different AVs.

2)  Vastly reducing the situations where an AV is worthless.

3)  Vastly reducing the situations where an action is known to be automatically successful before taking it.

Also, I have no clue why you think "half the time make it pointless for the player to cheat fate."  Any time your twist card + AV will exceed the opposing value, whether it's a fixed TN or a flip + value, it will be worth it to do it.

There's no math behind your statement, which is really what it comes down to.  I have a solution that preserves narrative uncertainty, the relative value of AVs and the ability to cheat.  Which I've demonstrated in black and white. 

So I don't think I've seen proof of 1. Although it might be doing it just by the reduction of the effect of AV on the duel at all. (You've changed the range of Random numbers from 15 to 29, so the AV is a less significant part of the duel. Although I have just realised you have also altered the distribution of the random numbers, making them slightly less random. Which I think means that you have increased the loss based on the difference of 1, but subsequent differences will have a lower effect. which sort of makes both our statements correct. I hate statistics!)

I think 2 is wrong, its just you don't know its worthless until you are in the duel. So it is reducing the perception that the AV is worthless but I'm not sure that it is reducing the amount that it would cause you to lose. This might just be a difference in how you are defining "worthless".  If you are talking about Challenges you know you can't win before you start, then I agree. If you're talking about the number of times an increase in AV would have changed a loss to a win I disagree.

3 I agree with.

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 6:42 PM, LeperColony said:

2)  The 30% difference is only one metric.  The other is the success chance as a ratio of the AV value.  Each AV point has a "cost," but the value a Fated gets for the investment changes in a non-linear fashion under Fixed TN, but not opposed flipping.

AV 6 will succeed only 1/3rd more often than AV 2 at TN 10, despite being 3x the value.

But AV 6 will succeed 16x more often than AV 2 at TN 16, despite only being 3x the value. 

If each point were worth a linear increase, we wouldn't see these swings.  

Success chance as a ratio of the AV value seems a silly metric to me.  If I just add 1000 to each AV and the TN, I don't effect the chances of succeeding, but I have hugely changed the ratio.

Or lets try the other extreme

AV 4 will succeed 1/3rd more often than AV 0 at TN 8 despite being infinitely more the value

Av 4 will succeed 16x more than AV 0 at TN 14 despite being infinitely more the value.

Yes, I stand by it being a silly metric to consider because it doesn't really tell us anything.  Now I can't remember the xp improvement, so I can't remember if it costs me more to raise my AV from 4 to 6 than it does to raise it from 0 to 2. But that's still looking at something that isn't really a useful stat because the difference between 0-4 are identical to 2-6 and to 1000-1004 but the ratios you get would be wildly different.

 

 

[LeperColony]

5 hours ago, Adran said:

Your argument's about the relative change of fixed TNs vs opposed flips still sound flawed, possibly because you show how it changes for Fixed TNs and then don't say or show anything about opposed duels.

That's partially because it is much more complicated.

Opponents total      AV 2 (%)    AV 6 (%)   Difference success %  % per AV 2 / 6     

    5                                 83          100                          17                       42.5  /  16.7                          

      6                                76          100                        34                         38  /  16.7                          

      7                                69          98                         29                          34.5  /  16.3                                                   

     8                                61           91                          30                         31.5  /  18.2                       

     9                                54           83                         29                           27  /  13.8

    10                               46           76                      30                              23  /  12.7

    11                               39          69                         30                           19.5  /  11.5

    12                               31           61                       30                             15.5  /  10.1

    13                               24          54                       30                              12  /  9

     14                              17         46                        29                               8.5  /  7.7                   

   15                                 9           39                         30                             4.5  /  6.5                                  

  16                                  2          31                           29                             1  /  5.1                                                 

  17                                  0          24                        24                                0  /  4                         

  18                                   0        17                          17                               0  /  2.8           

As we can see, in a fixed TN system, each point of AV "buys" an uneven amount of success, thus establishing a different relative value in the worth of each point of AV.  However, when we do opposed flips, we don't see this effect because the TN is not fixed, but rather is a floating number based on two randomly determined values.

We can say AV 6 wins ~80 of the time over AV 2 because each point of AV is ~7.5 in value.  However, the actual range of cards that will get AV 2 over AV 6 is not known before the flip (before the action is taken), so there is no persistent difference in relative value in a fresh deck.  We can only say the following for sure:

AV 2 cannot win if it does not flip above 4 or 5, depending on if it is a situation where it wins ties.

AV 6 cannot lose if it flips above 10 or 11, depending on it is a situation where it wins ties.

Every other situation in between is a different calculation, with the only constant being the 4 point advantage AV 6 gets.  That's why when you perform opposed flips, each point of AV holds the same relative value. 

Now, a difference in relative value does exist in opposed flips any time one side simply cannot win against the other.  But we see those points only where there are no cards such that the lower AV cannot defeat the higher AV.  For instance, if there only remained with the deck cards within a 3 point range (1-3, 4-7, 5-8, etc), then AV 2 could never defeat AV 6, and therefore AV 6's edge is not 7.5% per point, but rather AV 6 has a 100% edge or, in other words, AV 2 becomes worthless.

Those numbers assume AV 2 wins on ties.  If it loses on ties, then AV 2 automatically loses if the deck only consists of cards within a 4 point range.  But already you can see that the calculation required is much more difficult (which helps preserve uncertainty) and also that the circumstances at which lower AV becomes worthless are much more rare.

Consider this.  AV 2 becomes worthless at 17.  It becomes worthless at 16 if the RJ is gone.  It becomes worthless at 15 if the RJ and all kings are gone.

Do you know what has to happen for AV 2 to be worthless in opposed flips?

AV 2 is worthless against AV 17.  17!!!  Who has an AV of 17?

I've asked this before but received no answer.  Do you believe that making AV worthless is a good thing?  Because I don't.  And I think a system where "why bother" comes up is something to be avoided where possible.

5 hours ago, Adran said:

Its a shift in the emphisis of the background. (Do you give the Fate master a control hand? or are they literally just using their deck to provide the uncertainty?)

I've never understood this argument.  The emphasis of the background is going to have more to be based on the dynamics of the group, not the mechanics of the system.  The Fatemaster can be antagonistic in attitude whatever resolution system you use, even something as random as the number of times a black cat walks by.          

I provide control hands to important, named NPCs in a similar manner as the Fated.  Ordinary NPCs or flips against "the world" aren't subject to a Fatemaster control hand.

5 hours ago, Adran said:

I think 2 is wrong, its just you don't know its worthless until you are in the duel.

This relies very much on the definition of worthless.  I define worthless as any value that has no impact on the outcome, such that there would be no point in even attempting the action.  

In other words, with a fresh deck, we know if we have AV 2, it is worthless against TN 17.

We also know, if we have AV 2, that we are worthless against TN 16 once the red joker is gone, worthless against 15 once kings and RJ go, etc.  This is the death spiral low AVs face because they are much more vulnerable to card loss.

As I explained above, this dynamic is much harder to achieve in opposed flips because in order for any lower AV to be worthless against a higher AV, the deck must be entirely composed of cards that have a range lower than (or equal to, again depending on who wins ties in the flip in question) the difference in AVs.

And this range becomes even more difficult to achieve if multiple decks are used, as I do.

Also, keep in mind in TtB, it is entirely possible for Fated to have 0 or even negative AVs.  Which means they encounter all the issues AV 2 does, at much lower TNs.    

5 hours ago, Adran said:

Success chance as a ratio of the AV value seems a silly metric to me.

But from the standpoint of game design, it shouldn't be silly because AV is not free.  Players have to pay to have AV values, in the choices they make during character creation and in advancement (or degradation, if it so happens that they go "backward").  When a player is allocating values, either during generation or advancement, or they are assessing their chances mid-game while facing modifiers, they are entitled to a reasonable reliance that the value of each point of AV is constant.

If I put everything in character creation to get an AV of 6, I've made a decision based on success chance as a ratio of AV.  In my experience, many players care about being good at what their character is supposed to be about.  And being good is a relative metric.  It's not just the chance to succeed versus the game, but the sense that I am better at my specific emphasis than someone who hasn't dedicated the same resources.

But in a fixed TN system, the relative value of AV points is not fixed. 

Of course, they are not truly fixed in any system because the deck of cards are not dice.  They have memory, and so the remaining cards do influence the relative values even in opposed flips.  But the math is much more complicated, especially with multiple decks, and it requires either a very low number of cards, very wide differences in AV, or very strange circumstances to get pre-ordained results. 

 

[Adran]

44 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

  

As we can see, in a fixed TN system, each point of AV "buys" an uneven amount of success, thus establishing a different relative value in the worth of each point of AV.  However, when we do opposed flips, we don't see this effect because the TN is not fixed, but rather is a floating number based on two randomly determined values.

We can say AV 6 wins ~80 of the time over AV 2 because each point of AV is ~7.5 in value.  However, the actual range of cards that will get AV 2 over AV 6 is not known before the flip (before the action is taken), so there is no persistent difference in relative value in a fresh deck.  We can only say the following for sure:

AV 2 cannot win if it does not flip above 4 or 5, depending on if it is a situation where it wins ties.

AV 6 cannot lose if it flips above 10 or 11, depending on it is a situation where it wins ties.

Every other situation in between is a different calculation, with the only constant being the 4 point advantage AV 6 gets.  That's why when you perform opposed flips, each point of AV holds the same relative value. 

Now, a difference in relative value does exist in opposed flips any time one side simply cannot win against the other.  But we see those points only where there are no cards such that the lower AV cannot defeat the higher AV.  For instance, if there only remained with the deck cards within a 3 point range (1-3, 4-7, 5-8, etc), then AV 2 could never defeat AV 6, and therefore AV 6's edge is not 7.5% per point, but rather AV 6 has a 100% edge or, in other words, AV 2 becomes worthless.

  

I think in a Fixed TN each point of AV buys an even amount of improvement to success except in the extremes. (based on the same deck. As the Deck alters the improvement alters, and its not equal if you have removed some of the critical values)

In an opposed duel system each point of AV buys a different amount of success.

Because in a Fixed TN you have an equal chance of flipping 1-13.

In an opposed duel you are most likely to flip a card matching your opponents card (7.2%). You are next most likely to flip a card 1 higher or lower than your opponent (each 6.9%). Then flipping a card 2 different from your opponent is (6.3% for each) this continues till the chance of you flipping a card 14 different from your opponent will occur 0.03% of the time in your favour, and 0.03% in their favour. The distribution of the random number is a Gaussian curve, so the further apart your values are, the lower the improvement of your stat improves your chance (again, based on a new deck.  

So, if I'm right (and I might not be) (Based on 2 new decks)

AV 1 vs AV2 will win 46.4% of the time

AV 2 VS AV 2 will win 53.6% of the time.

Av 3 vs AV2 will win 60.5%,

AV 4 vs AV2 will win  66.8%

AV 5 vs AV2 will win 72.6%

AV 6 vs AV2 will win 77.7%

So in terms of Improvement 1-2 is 7.2%. 2-3 is 6.9%, 3-4 is 6.3% 4-5 is 5.8% and 5-6 is 5.2%. That's certainly not an equal improvement by any stretch of the imagination.

44 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

But as a game designer, it shouldn't be silly because AV is not free.  Players have to pay to have AV values, in the choices they make during character creation and in advancement (or degradation, if it so happens that they go "backward").  When a player is allocating values, either during generation or advancement, or they are assessing their chances mid-game while facing modifiers, they are entitled to a reasonable reliance that the value of each point of AV is constant.

If I put everything in character creation to get an AV of 6, I've made a decision based on success chance as a ratio of AV.  In my experience, many players care about being good at what their character is supposed to be about.  And being good is a relative metric.  It's not just the chance to succeed versus the game, but the sense that I am better at my specific emphasis than someone who hasn't dedicated the same resources.

But in a fixed TN system, the relative value of AV points is not fixed. 

Of course, they are not truly fixed in any system because the deck of cards are not dice.  They have memory, and so the remaining cards do influence the relative values even in opposed flips.  But the math is much more complicated, especially with multiple decks, and it requires either a very low number of cards, very wide differences in AV, or very strange circumstances to get pre-ordained results. 

 

I disagree with your claim that its reasonable to accept that each point of stat increase is equivalent. I have certainly played plenty of systems where it is not. And some where the increase is linear, but the cost for the increase is not.  I agree many players will put as many points into what they see as their primary skill as possible. Most of them do this knowing that it is a case of diminishing returns (at least with the people I have played with in roleplay games) but they want to be better than others at their 1 thing.

 

[Adran]

50 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

Also, keep in mind in TtB, it is entirely possible for Fated to have 0 or even negative AVs.  Which means they encounter all the issues AV 2 does, at much lower TNs.    

And also why using ratios of AVs is a usless number. the ration of 1 to -1 is the same as 2 to-2, (ratio of -1) but because the difference is 2 units to 4 units, the effect on the game is very different.

[MathHare]

Wow! Tons of Math lately on this post! I need to read them carefully but I haven't done it yet (hopefuly this weekend will do).

This week I had another sesion with my players and I tried a different approach. I based myself in a "search flip" in the Nythera adventure, but I think it is done like this in much more places.

Instead of answering with a "yes/no" I used margins of success. So the TN may be 10, and with that you notice noone is "following" you, but if you flip a 15 you may notice someone is "keeping an eye" on you. Maybe if you flip a 20 you can even realize that that guy has make some encantation so he knows where the party goes.... 

It worked quite well, I think my players really like it.

(I promise I'll read all discusion above, but I wanted to post this ASAP in case it may help anyone DMing 😉 )

[LeperColony]

13 minutes ago, Adran said:

Because in a Fixed TN you have an equal chance of flipping 1-13.

This is true, but first of all, you can't discount the two jokers because they do impact the variance of the distribution of values.  And also, the fact that you have an equal chance of flipping 1-13 is only true at the beginning, with a fresh deck.  As the deck degrades, low AVs are disproportionately impacted in that they become worthless at lower TNs.  Being rendered worthless at TN 20 is not really a meaningful concept in the game under the vast majority of situations.  AV 2 is worthless at 17.  0 is rendered worthless at TN 15.  AV -1, 14, AV -2 13.

16 minutes ago, Adran said:

I think in a Fixed TN each point of AV buys an even amount of improvement to success except in the extremes. (based on the same deck. As the Deck alters the improvement alters, and its not equal if you have removed some of the critical values)

Except I showed it doesn't with the chart.  Of course, part of this does depend on what you mean by extremes.  It is in the mid-range that fixed TN performs best.  At lower TNs, low AVs have a much higher relative value than high AVs, and at high TNs that changes.

Now, to be sure, if you don't think relative value is an important concept, then the fact that low AV overperforms at low TNs doesn't matter.  

23 minutes ago, Adran said:

The distribution of the random number is a Gaussian curve, so the further apart your values are, the lower the improvement of your stat improves your chance (again, based on a new deck.  

This is because as a ratio, a higher number divides into the total chances and results in a lesser apparent improvement.  But this is a statistical artifice.  For each point of improvement, it blocks out a set of four cards from the range at which you can win, which is a fixed rate of advancement.

In other words, as the difference in values increases, the percent of total value each AV is responsible for decreases.  But until you reach a 14 point difference in AV, each point of AV increases the range.

30 minutes ago, Adran said:

Then flipping a card 2 different from your opponent is (6.3% for each) this continues till the chance of you flipping a card 14 different from your opponent will occur 0.03% of the time in your favour, and 0.03% in their favour.

Because you are most likely to flip the same value, that means that each point of AV you have in excess of your opponent removes four cards from the available total number they need to match you.  Hence the 7.5% straight advantage per point (in a fresh deck).

This is a simple, consistent metric between two AV values that simply does not change until you get to the transition from 13-14 point difference. And at a 13 or 14 point AV difference, really, what's the point?

The reason this is not the same at fixed TN is because against low TNs, low AVs can provide a high reliability of success, and at high TNs can be rendered worthless.

Part of the issue we're seeing is that there are many different metrics by which we can ascribe value to the mechanics.  That's why I've clearly labeled what it is I think is valuable, and why opposed flipping supports those valuations.

You've yet to indicate any sense of what value you think fixed TNs have.  I'm not saying there aren't any, in fact there are (simplicity and speed namely).  But if you don't identify what you think is valuable, it's hard to determine which figures support those claims.

51 minutes ago, Adran said:

So in terms of Improvement 1-2 is 7.2%. 2-3 is 6.9%, 3-4 is 6.3% 4-5 is 5.8% and 5-6 is 5.2%. That's certainly not an equal improvement by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, this is another statistical artifice we see because the variance is not even.  Not all results are equally likely because there are only 2 jokers, 1 BJ (0) and 1 RJ (14).  When looked at as a range of cards, the advantage is a flat.  The relative value between 6 and 2 is always going to be the 16 cards (or 20 if ties go to high) between them.

The reason this is not true of fixed TN is because low AVs peter out and become worthless.

In another thread, a @oadrian is asking if retainers are balanced because they can get up to a 15 or 16 without too much difficulty.  

Now let me ask you.  Which scenario would you rather have as the AV 2 player? 

Flipping against a static 15 or 16, or flipping against someone with a AV of 9 (just using the rank + flip, and since the value of a flip is ~ 6.1 in a fresh deck, we get 15 as an average).

I think we both know the answer.

58 minutes ago, Adran said:

I disagree with your claim that its reasonable to accept that each point of stat increase is equivalent. I have certainly played plenty of systems where it is not. And some where the increase is linear, but the cost for the increase is not.  I agree many players will put as many points into what they see as their primary skill as possible. Most of them do this knowing that it is a case of diminishing returns (at least with the people I have played with in roleplay games) but they want to be better than others at their 1 thing.

I'd say the majority of games have systems where the increase is consistent, though you are right that many do have non-linear costs.

As far as diminishing returns, as I've said, in the majority of cases that's going to be a cost-side analysis, not a diminishing return in your odds of success.  

Part of the consistency is whether you see it as about whether the increase in your success rate is going to be constant, or whether each value increases your success by a constant number.

In other words, in D20, the roll is D20 + skill and you're trying to hit a TN.  So each point of skill is a 5% increase in success.  That's a constant increase in the success rate.  But if you go from 9 to 10, that one point is not likely to increase the number of successes you have by 5%, because there will be plenty of instances where the additional value didn't matter.