Graphs of Success Probability by Skill Total and Difficulty

I've given you tables of success probabilities by skill total and difficulty for two systems (World of Darkness, Shadowrun 4th ed.), plus a graph for Heavy Gear.  Here I present that information again in graphs, plus two more systems, to show some of the different patterns that exist for success probabilities with increases in skill among different systems.

Linear

Here is your standard d20 system, most popular in Dungeons and Dragons.  Each character has a skill modified by an attribute and various other junk, added to a d20 result and compared to a difficulty level.  Each increase in the skill total raises the probability of success by 5% linearly.  There is always at least a 5% chance of failure (rolling a 1).  In the D&D games, skills are not bought with general character development points, but characters are alloted a few points each level to be used only for skills.  Difficulty levels typically scale with character levels, so it behooves players to specialize in a few skills that are always increased with the character level in order to maintain good probabilities of success as characters level up.  I am not getting in to "taking 10" or "taking 20".

Inconsistent

Here is the graph for Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system, used in their Heavy Gear game.  We can see that the progression is not consistent.  The lowest skill is concave, rapidly dropping the probability of success at low difficulties relative to the drop at higher difficulties where the probability of success is already very low.  A skill of 1 has a linear descent.  Higher skills progressively maintain high success rates among lower difficulties before rapidly plunging at higher difficulties, and then there is the bent tail as it becomes more possible to roll multiple 6s.  Attribute bonuses are added to skill roll results, shifting the graph to the right without changing its shape.

Normal

Isn't that pretty?  I am not sure if I am completely representing the GURPS system accurately here, but I think players just have to roll lower than the characters' skills on 3d6 to succeed at tasks (17s and 18s fail).  So, there is no real "difficulty level" for tasks other than what is forced by skill levels.  There may be modifiers that increase or decrease a skill for the purpose of a challenge, shifting the whole curve to the left or right.  If we graphed the probabilities of each individual outcome for 3d6, the line would be shaped like a bell.  I call this "normal" because as a "normal distribution" it has higher probabilities of outcomes in the middle, progressively less likely outcomes away from the middle, and is relatively symmetrical.

Inconsistent Normal

We can see here that both Shadowrun by Catalyst Game Labs and World of Darkness by White Wolf approach the normal curve as their dice pools (skill total, or skill + attribute) increase.  With few dice in these systems, it is impossible to approximate the distribution of the normal pattern, and the results more follow the Inconsistent pattern.  These systems both involve rolling multiple dice (d6 and d10, respectively), and counting die results over a threshold as "successes".  Players need a number of successes equal to a task's difficult in order to succeed.  So, the terminology can get annoying as people get a bunch of successes but still fail at a task.

I really like how the Normal distribution of probabilities of success works in simulations, but not necessarily the way that GURPS implements it in the absence of difficulty levels.  In real life, when we encounter tasks far below our skill level, we are quite likely to succeed at them and have a low variance with our high success rate.  When we encounter tasks far above our skill level, we are quite likely to fail at them and have a low variance with our high failure rate.  Tasks closer to our skill level have increasingly variant success rates.  Because of this, I am in favor of the use of normal distributions of probability of success in simulation systems.  This typically requires rolling more than one die and summing the results.

Dream Pod 9's Silhouette System part 2

When we last left our intrepid system, I had graphed probabilities of success at various difficulty thresholds for different skill levels, holding attributes constant, and I made the claim that the system encourages min-maxing.  Let us follow up on that.

This table shows the probabilities of succeeding at tasks with a difficulty threshold of 6, which is hard, for various combinations of skill and attribute.  It also shows the character creation point cost of each skill/attribute combination, and the point cost per percentage change of success.

We see that costs mirror each other across the center diagonal, and it is a more efficient use of points to buy a high attribute than a high skill.  Even more important to note is that Attributes are applicable to many skills, and are sometimes used to determine secondary traits (Health is the average of Fitness, Psyche, and Willpower).  So, not only would it be more efficient to buy a high attribute for just one skill, there is compound efficiency for buying a high attribute in general and with multiple related skills.

This table shows the average probabilities of success across tasks with difficulty thresholds from 1 to 7.  That should be a relatively standard distribution, since a threshold of 4 is considered average.

A notable difference here is that it is actually more efficient in some cases to buy a lower attribute than skill, but only when the average probability of success is less than 51%, which is not usually desirable in a heroic simulation.  At the useful levels of success, it is still more efficient to buy a high attribute, even for a single related skill.  We also see that an attribute of 2 and a skill of 3 is a kind of sweet spot for good success at a moderate price.

There are many available skills, but the overwhelming majority of them are based on just three attributes: Agility, Knowledge, and Creativity.  As far as skills go, this means there is a strong incentive to min-max, and just pick one of the three areas to focus on while taking negative scores in the other two.  If you don't care about having a lot of skills, and want more of a brute character, scrap all three and raise the Build, Fitness, Psyche, and Willpower attributes instead.

Since those three attributes apply to so many skills, it would be more appropriate to make a new version of each of the above tables for each number of desired skills, adding in only the average attribute cost per skill.  I am not currently inclined to make a dozen more tables.  This would make it drastically more evident that a high attribute score (a 4 is possible for a starting heroic character, but a 3 is practically as high as even a min-maxer should go) allows for the most success at multiple skills for an efficient price.

Something that I did not highlight is the fact that the same point pool is not used to buy attributes and skills.  It is impossible to use a huge number of points on attributes and then buy a bunch of low level skills as it is in GURPS.  This system guarantees a set block of points for skills.  If you don't want a lot of skills, use your attribute points to build a brute, and buy high levels of the couple skills you do want.  If you want a lot of skills, pick one of the three polyskill attributes to focus on, crank it up and buy many low level related skills.  I am glad that Dream Pod 9 split the pools this way, as it does slightly limit min-maxing and forces characters to have skills, but the system still does encourage attribute min-maxing within its point pool.

Also interesting is that it is incredibly difficult to increase attributes during play.  The experience point costs are  different than the character creation point costs, and strongly incentivize buying skills during play instead of saving up to increase an attribute.

Dream Pod 9's Silhouette System part 1

I had a lot of fun playing Heavy Gear by Dream Pod 9 with friends back in undergrad.  DP9 came up with a game system it calls Silhouette.  I remember a friend telling me that it was mathematically optimized for 8-sided dice, but they just changed the dice to 6-siders because people tend to have d6s lying around.  Whether or not that is true, there is a little funkiness in the system.  Here is a brief intro to the dice system, and I will have a deeper report later.

In this system, characters have attributes and skills.  To perform a task, the player rolls a number of d6s equal to his character's skill level (if the skill is 0, 2 dice are rolled and the lower result is used), and the highest result is used, with any 6s over the first adding 1 to the result.  Then the appropriate attribute is added to the die result.  So, a player whose character has an attribute of 2 and a skill of 3 will roll 3d6, take the highest die result (+1 for each 6 over the first) and add 2.  The total is then compared to a difficulty threshold, and the character succeeds if the result is higher than the difficulty.  If the total equals the difficulty, there is a draw, which usually favors a defender, and I am counting as a failure.  If all 1s are rolled, there is a "fumble" and something bad happens regardless of modifiers.

Attribute scores effectively take away from a task's difficulty (or add to it if the attribute is negative, which is common; 0 is average for an attribute).  A difficulty of 4 is supposed to be average, 8 very difficult, and 10 or more practically unattainable.  Even the game creators describe the progression of success as "peculiar."

Just a cursory glance shows us that attempting tasks with a skill of 0 significantly risks fumbles, that there are diminishing returns as skills increase (I'll go more into that in part 2), and that you shouldn't count on rolling more than one 6.  Also, you can see how important attributes are, shifting the entire graph to the left or right.

We had a sniper in our party with a dexterity of 3, which is a very high attribute.  He was ridiculously successful at dexterity tasks for which he had little or no skill, such as piloting a Gear.  This system cries out for min-maxing, and game masters should be ready to impose limits and say the magic word: "no."