Forums of the Megaverse®

Hi there,

I have a question: Why roll 3 times to get out of coma? Can this not be handled in one simple roll?

When you are at or below 0 HP you fall into a coma. You survive that state for [P.E. attribute]hours. So, you want to be stabilized, i.e. pulled back up to 1 HP and out of the coma. To achieve this it is best if some friendly helper comes by (party member e.g.). He must then roll 3 recovery rolls and be successful in at least 2 or them. With a doctor but without proper facilities, i.e. in the field without a field hospital, the chance per roll is 46% (BtS, page 137).

Now, I am not really good at probability calculation. Does anybody have the formula for the question "what is the probability to roll twice 46% or less on a D100 on 3 throws"?

I would assume the likelihood is at least c. 20% (0.46*0.46*1) or 42% (0.46*0.46*2). If the latter it would be rediculous to make three rolls for a 4% difference ... but as I said, I do not know how to calculate that, so before I can form an informed opinion, I would really appreciate your help.

That said, what about this as an alternative: Make one roll = [recovery rate (see table)]-[HP taken below 0].

Cheers
Hendrik

Probably there to make recovery more dramatic.

There's a nifty little probability calculator called SmallRoller that calculates this for you. Available at this link here, and it's a stand-alone that does not need to be installed.

So I used it, and the probability of rolling 46 or less 2 times when rolling 1d100 3 times is 44.01%. When you're in a coma and the chance of you coming out of it is 44%...I'll take those odds.

Generally, 'Best 2 out of 3' gives you better odds that '1 roll and dead'.

Someone figure out how to input this into http://anydice.com/ for some exact maths, I was trying but I'm being harassed by people to do other things at the moment.

Severus Snape wrote:There's a nifty little probability calculator called SmallRoller that calculates this for you. Available at this link here, and it's a stand-alone that does not need to be installed.

VERY cool programme. Thank you very much, Severus!

Severus Snape wrote:So I used it, and the probability of rolling 46 or less 2 times when rolling 1d100 3 times is 44.01%. When you're in a coma and the chance of you coming out of it is 44%...I'll take those odds.

Well, 44% are good odds to get out of something as dramatic and bad as a coma. However, looking at the engine I do not see the advantage in rolling 3 times for a 44.01% chance instead of leaving it at the intial 46% on 1 roll. It just does not seem worth the bother.

Armorlord wrote:Generally, 'Best 2 out of 3' gives you better odds that '1 roll and dead'.

It does not seem so to me, dear Armorlord.

Only when you look at high chances, those do get better. For example: the best possible chance for recovery from coma. If you avail yourself (aka the comatose guy) to the treatment of a large hospital the chance is 70% - it does not get any better - and according to SmallRoller the probability of rolling 70 or less 2 times when rolling a D100 3 times is 78.40%. Ok, this is a bit better and in a pinch an essential +8 on the compound percentile roll is definitely a "wanna-have", but is it really worth to roll three times?

To get a fuller picture, let us look at the lowest possible chance - the 18% recovery chance when the comatose person is treated by unprofessional help with a medical skill: according to SmallRoller the probability of rolling 18 or less 2 times when rolling a D100 3 times is 8.55%. Now, a 9.5% loss is very much less desirable than an 8% gain! Especially for those with lower chances should not have to afford further loss of chance when those with a high chance to begin with even see an increase.

Grell wrote:Probably there to make recovery more dramatic.

Yeah, I agree, but I think - if SmallRoller is correct - it is (a) not worth the hassle and (b) is actually unfair to those with a low chance, the rule appears lopsided.

Cheers
Hendrik

So there is a good chance that the char will not die on the player.

There is also a superstitious significance to the number 3...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:So there is a good chance that the char will not die on the player.

a. Putting it this way, drewkitty, is correct and wrong at the same time, see below.

b. It is also beside my point. My point is 3 rolls are not only superfluous (you could do the same with ONE roll, especially when considering that the recovery percentages are fixed and not dependent on e.g. medical skill values - which is strange anyhow - but so can be set to accomodate the desired values).

As it is
18% --> 8.55% (stated recovery chance reduced by "win 2 out of 3 rolls"; 3 rolls negative for roller, which at this low end is REALLY BAD)
46% --> 44.01% (stated chance nigh the same; 3 rolls ridiculous)
70% --> 78.40% (stated chance further increased by "win 2 out of 3 rolls"; 3 rolls good, but why do we have to increase the anyway really good chance further when at the low end teh exact opposite happens)

Grell wrote:There is also a superstitious significance to the number 3...

True. I love rolling dice. I love having opposing rolls, especially in combat, even if you could put all that in one roll without any loss of mathematical advantage but to the detriment of the fun of "actively" defending.

However, here the 3 rolls just fudge percentile chances that were arbitrary in the first place and that just does not make any sense. Also on the low end the chances actually are decreased so the 3 rolls are to the detriment of the roller who can least afford it.

This so needs to be reworked.

Cheers
Hendrik

While it's a small distance, too small to matter until it hits the extreme low when it's killing you at twice the rate, I do like the basic idea of your chances get naturally worse in the field. And established time between each check would make it meaningful, such as chance 1 within minutes (this being the hard one), next one six hours after, last one a day after (of course this is just off the cuff as example). This lets the person upgrade their chances by their friends getting them to help fast, and sets a tempo to it all.

Hendrik wrote:

Grell wrote:There is also a superstitious significance to the number 3...

True. I love rolling dice. I love having opposing rolls, especially in combat, even if you could put all that in one roll without any loss of mathematical advantage but to the detriment of the fun of "actively" defending.

However, here the 3 rolls just fudge percentile chances that were arbitrary in the first place and that just does not make any sense. Also on the low end the chances actually are decreased so the 3 rolls are to the detriment of the roller who can least afford it.

This so needs to be reworked.

Cheers
Hendrik

One could argue that the character is already in a disadvantaged position being in a coma to begin with. With exceptional attributes not being the norm, I would rather take meager to average chances 2 out of 3 as opposed to letting it all ride on one roll. I could see giving the player an option between one roll and three if they really wanted, but I don't really see the point.

Granted, I don't usually care to crunch numbers for averages to get the best result either.

Hendrik wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:So there is a good chance that the char will not die on the player.

a. Putting it this way, drewkitty, is correct and wrong at the same time, see below.

b. It is also beside my point. My point is 3 rolls are not only superfluous (you could do the same with ONE roll, especially when considering that the recovery percentages are fixed and not dependent on e.g. medical skill values - which is strange anyhow - but so can be set to accomodate the desired values).

As it is
18% --> 8.55% (stated recovery chance reduced by "win 2 out of 3 rolls"; 3 rolls negative for roller, which at this low end is REALLY BAD)
46% --> 44.01% (stated chance nigh the same; 3 rolls ridiculous)
70% --> 78.40% (stated chance further increased by "win 2 out of 3 rolls"; 3 rolls good, but why do we have to increase the anyway really good chance further when at the low end teh exact opposite happens)

Ah, but here you have the point of it. Basically the rolls exist so that characters with a decent shot don't die to a single bad roll.

Grell wrote:One could argue that the character is already in a disadvantaged position being in a coma to begin with.

I agree with this, Grell, but that really is not the point about the recovery roles as those chances are determined not by the disadvantaged comatose person but by who tries to get him out of coma. Actually, one of the puzzling aspects of the recovery roll is that the physical base condition of the comatose person (PE) does not figure in the roll at all. Just as puzzling is that for determining the recovery chance it is important whether or not the helper has a medical skill but regardless of that skill's quality.

Grell wrote:With exceptional attributes not being the norm, I would rather take meager to average chances 2 out of 3 as opposed to letting it all ride on one roll. I could see giving the player an option between one roll and three if they really wanted, but I don't really see the point.

My issue with the rule is that it makes meager chances yet more meager and is not open about it. Giving players the option to take the "better" option of letting it ride on 2 out of 3 instead of "only" on 1 roll is NOT giving them better options, it de facto decreases their chances.

Mind, I do not mind if the lowest chance is called 9% or 5% or "sorry, buster, no chance without medical attention, the better the quality the better your hopes". What I really have a beef with is to say it is "X" when in reality it is "X-Y" (and that goes for anyone under ~50%).

Armorlord wrote:Ah, but here you have the point of it. Basically the rolls exist so that characters with a decent shot don't die to a single bad roll.

My dear Armorlord, ok let us focus on those with a decent chance to begin with, let us say 60% or above. Their chances will, indeed, improve when rolling 2 out of 3 instead of only 1 roll. However, as all those chances are, as stated, completely arbitrary, i.e. independent of (i) medical skill of the helper, (ii) P.E. attribute of the comatose person or (iii) no. of HP under 0, etc., why not simply say that the chance is e.g. 78% (and roll once) if there is professional treatment and a great hospital available to deliver it when the recovery is attempted, instead of saying it is 70% but you have to "win 2 out of 3". This is just stage-magician-ship, eyewashing, no more, no less.

Why do I care at all? I take issue about this because I find that the Palladium rules are all about verisimilitude and as a rule the rolls you are asked to make, make sense. This rule, though, does not and consumes game time without a tenable benefit (as the active defense rolls have).

The benefit of masking the real chances by letting players roll 2 out of 3 times instead of once is further consumed by not only masking a chance improvement for those with decent chances from the start, but by - and I think that is really bad - by decreasing the chances for anyone with a chance under about 50%. It would be the good and straightforward thing to do to say, "ok, you have no professional help, you're in the field, this is going to be hard - your chance is 9% (and NOT 18%).

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:So there is a good chance that the char will not die on the player.

And that is what the rule DOES NOT accomplish, good Drewkitty, as it decreases recovery chances for anyone with a stated recovery chance of under 50%.

Cinos wrote:While it's a small distance, too small to matter until it hits the extreme low when it's killing you at twice the rate, I do like the basic idea of your chances get naturally worse in the field. And established time between each check would make it meaningful, such as chance 1 within minutes (this being the hard one), next one six hours after, last one a day after (of course this is just off the cuff as example). This lets the person upgrade their chances by their friends getting them to help fast, and sets a tempo to it all.

Cinos, I happily agree with the basic proposition that chances to recover are, indeed, worse in the field.

The established time between checks according to the rule is 1 hour, although I much prefer your sequence!

However, the recovery numbers given in the rules are fixed, i.e. there already is a number for "recovery in the field without professional help" and that number is 18%. Why should it further decrease? The "recovery in the field without professional help"-chance already is supposed to reflect these circumstances.

I would agree with you on the latter if the rule would say, for example: "Recovery from coma is accomplished by a person trying to get you out of coma by applying his medical skill (any medical skill is possible for this, although 1st Aid and Holistic skills. both not 100% geared for getting someone out of coma work at 1/2 value for this to begin with). The medical skill will be (further) modified depending on circumstances. If you are in the field its -30%, if you do not have medical gear available it is -15%, if you are in a great hospital it is +10%, etc." Just making a couple of examples there, I have not really thought about the numbers, but I think it is sufficient to convey what I mean. Modifiers would then be the way to convey "bad circumstances". Here, though the negative situation has already been translated into a low (18%) chance. There is NO reason to lower it further, and even if there is, it should be spelled out in a straightforward manner and not masked behind a bogus roll.

Cheers
Hendrik

Hendrik wrote:Cinos, I happily agree with the basic proposition that chances to recover are, indeed, worse in the field.

The established time between checks according to the rule is 1 hour, although I much prefer your sequence!

However, the recovery numbers given in the rules are fixed, i.e. there already is a number for "recovery in the field without professional help" and that number is 18%. Why should it further decrease? The "recovery in the field without professional help"-chance already is supposed to reflect these circumstances.

I would agree with you on the latter if the rule would say, for example: "Recovery from coma is accomplished by a person trying to get you out of coma by applying his medical skill (any medical skill is possible for this, although 1st Aid and Holistic skills. both not 100% geared for getting someone out of coma work at 1/2 value for this to begin with). The medical skill will be (further) modified depending on circumstances. If you are in the field its -30%, if you do not have medical gear available it is -15%, if you are in a great hospital it is +10%, etc." Just making a couple of examples there, I have not really thought about the numbers, but I think it is sufficient to convey what I mean. Modifiers would then be the way to convey "bad circumstances". Here, though the negative situation has already been translated into a low (18%) chance. There is NO reason to lower it further, and even if there is, it should be spelled out in a straightforward manner and not masked behind a bogus roll.

Cheers
Hendrik

The example given is how I actually do it. The only time there's a flat Save vs Coma or die roll for a character is if they're just trying to tough it out and have 0 access to medical help, good or bad. Otherwise I leave their recovery in the hands of the medics skill (adjusted of course for tools / conditions / missing organs / what have you). But then again, I can't even recall the last game that was remotely close to book rules I ran . . .

Hendrik wrote:I agree with this, Grell, but that really is not the point about the recovery roles as those chances are determined not by the disadvantaged comatose person but by who tries to get him out of coma. Actually, one of the puzzling aspects of the recovery roll is that the physical base condition of the comatose person (PE) does not figure in the roll at all. Just as puzzling is that for determining the recovery chance it is important whether or not the helper has a medical skill but regardless of that skill's quality.

Well, being in a coma represents a situation where a character's life is in someone else's hands, so it does make sense (at least to me) that the character should not determine their chances (or level of treatment, in this case). But bear in mind that depending on the OCC and the PE attribute itself, a character can still effect those chances for the better or for the worse.

Hendrik wrote:My issue with the rule is that it makes meager chances yet more meager and is not open about it. Giving players the option to take the "better" option of letting it ride on 2 out of 3 instead of "only" on 1 roll is NOT giving them better options, it de facto decreases their chances.

Mind, I do not mind if the lowest chance is called 9% or 5% or "sorry, buster, no chance without medical attention, the better the quality the better your hopes". What I really have a beef with is to say it is "X" when in reality it is "X-Y" (and that goes for anyone under ~50%).

I guess it's a matter of tastes.

Cinos wrote:The example given is how I actually do it.

Oops, I did not get that. Sorry. But, as said, I like it.

Cinos wrote:The only time there's a flat Save vs Coma or die roll for a character is if they're just trying to tough it out and have 0 access to medical help, good or bad. Otherwise I leave their recovery in the hands of the medics skill (adjusted of course for tools / conditions / missing organs / what have you). But then again, I can't even recall the last game that was remotely close to book rules I ran . . .

Me neither, I am just wondering about the sense of the way the rule handles recovery rules.

I agree with you that it makes far more sense - at least to me - to use (whatever) medical skill, modified by conditions, than the flat and arbitrary (the latter meant as a fact and not as a verdict) chances of the recovery rule per the book(s).

That said, I also need to go back quite far do find a case where I would have needed the recovery rules. The still should be transparent (which they are not) and work within reason (which I do not think they do).

Cheers
Hendrik

Grell wrote:

Hendrik wrote:I agree with this, Grell, but that really is not the point about the recovery roles as those chances are determined not by the disadvantaged comatose person but by who tries to get him out of coma. Actually, one of the puzzling aspects of the recovery roll is that the physical base condition of the comatose person (PE) does not figure in the roll at all. Just as puzzling is that for determining the recovery chance it is important whether or not the helper has a medical skill but regardless of that skill's quality.

Well, being in a coma represents a situation where a character's life is in someone else's hands, so it does make sense (at least to me) that the character should not determine their chances (or level of treatment, in this case). But bear in mind that depending on the OCC and the PE attribute itself, a character can still effect those chances for the better or for the worse.

You are right, of course, that any "Save vs Coma" bonus from the P.E. attribute, will modify that roll. Did not think about that. It is a good rule. Still, it is a static roll and I just do not understand why the medical (skills) are not used for that. But the latter is beside the point in sofar as my main problem with the rule is its intransparency and the downgrading of the chance at the lower end (that is up to about a 50% chance) and the upgrading of the chance for those with a good chance to begin with. It is a bit like some tax laws.

Grell wrote:

Hendrik wrote:My issue with the rule is that it makes meager chances yet more meager and is not open about it. Giving players the option to take the "better" option of letting it ride on 2 out of 3 instead of "only" on 1 roll is NOT giving them better options, it de facto decreases their chances.

Mind, I do not mind if the lowest chance is called 9% or 5% or "sorry, buster, no chance without medical attention, the better the quality the better your hopes". What I really have a beef with is to say it is "X" when in reality it is "X-Y" (and that goes for anyone under ~50%).

I guess it's a matter of tastes.

True, that. I am just flabberghasted, I guess, because the rules normally are very fair and more often than not - simplified, yes, but that also means with a nicely low simulation superstructure - quite realistic.

I think that whoever made that rule just did not look at what "2 out of 3" does with the probabilities. This "secret" modification of chances is very much NOT Palladium style.

Kindest regards
Hendrik

Fun fact: You have probably spent more time writing these posts than you will ever, EVER spend on making or watching someone roll coma saves.

Maybe a false economy worrying about two extra rolls.


Now, who's up to make combat require only one roll...

Noon wrote:Fun fact: You have probably spent more time writing these posts than you will ever, EVER spend on making or watching someone roll coma saves.

True, Noon. Not funny, though, if I may say so, as it very much seems to make light of the preparedness of people to say something on the matter, and for the latter I am grateful.

Noon wrote:Maybe a false economy worrying about two extra rolls.

I feel it is worth it. I like discussing such issues and wanted to see what the opinions on it are. Also, I think it is polite to answer people who go to the length to actually discuss the topic I started. But, yeah, the economy is off, but as I waste only my own time I am perfectly happy with that.

Noon wrote:Now, who's up to make combat require only one roll...

Not the topic the OP wants to discuss here (*cough*). May I say that I think discussing this here would sorely dilute the topic that is the subject of this discussion. I would like to suggest that if that question really interests you, why don't you open a new thread about that? I would be happy to give you my answer there.

Cheers
Hendrik