|
Kendall Merriman
United States San Jose California
-
While I was trying to figure out how to do don't rest your head rolls, I discovered this formula, which does exactly what I want, but in a way that seems like it may have been unintended.
6d6ic[7,3]
This rolls 6d6, counts 7+ as a failure, and 3- as a success. Now, the fact that failures are unrollable doesn't bother me. The fact that this may be exploiting a lack of range check, however, does worry me a bit, since I'd like these rolls to continue to function.
I'm wondering: 1. Is this intentional? Are you supposed to be able to count numbers you can't roll? 2. If this is a bug, is there a way to do what I was trying to do within the system? 3. If this is a bug that is going to be fixed, what will happen to my existing rolls? 4. If this is not doable within the system, can syntax for it be added?
That's all I guess.
-
Samuel Sol
Brazil São Paulo SP
All engines full to awesome land!
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
-
personwholives wrote: 2. If this is a bug, is there a way to do what I was trying to do within the system?
Yes it is a bug. Regarding if what you wanted to do is possible, what exactly was it? You don't want to have a possible success values? Only failures?
Quote: 3. If this is a bug that is going to be fixed, what will happen to my existing rolls?
That's all I guess.
Any roll that has already been done is locked as is. So the results are not changed.
-
Kendall Merriman
United States San Jose California
-
For this system, a roll of 3 or less is a success. Because I used ic (inverted count), the normal high values are counted as failures, and the low values are successes.
I wanted to count all 3 and belows, which that roll does exactly.
-
Samuel Sol
Brazil São Paulo SP
All engines full to awesome land!
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
-
This should do the trick mate 6d6ic[,3] = (6, 6, 3, 6, 6, 3) = -6
-
Kendall Merriman
United States San Jose California
-
Except that it didn't do what I expected. If you don't specify a value for the first number, it seems to fill in the max value, which is 6. Although in that case, it seems to have filled in 0 or NaN, and counted all the rolls as a failure.
For that roll, (6,6,3,6,6,3), the result should be 2, not -6.
6d6ic[7,3] = (5, 4, 5, 2, 4, 3) = 2
From the thread for my PBF where I'm using this trick:
personwholives wrote: In the meantime, I want to see what I can do with the die roller.
personwholives previously rolled 6d6ic[4,3] = (6, 5, 1, 6, 6, 1) = -2 - invert personwholives previously rolled 6d6c[4,3] = (4 2 1 5 1 5) = 0 - standard
I think one of those is the right way to do this, maybe? ETA: Nope, try again. personwholives previously rolled 6d6ic[7,3] = (6, 6, 4, 1, 1, 3) = 3
ETA2: That's got it. If you want to roll all of your dice at once, you can use that formula, though you have to roll each pool separately. So you can do something like this: personwholives previously rolled 3d6ic[7,3] = (1, 5, 5) = 1 (Discipline) personwholives previously rolled 2d6ic[7,3] = (5, 4) = 0 (Exhaustion) personwholives previously rolled 1d6ic[7,3] = (1) = 1 (Madness) Then sum the results to get your total successes. After that, I can still click to expand them to determine what dominates any particular roll.
Hopefully, that gives you some idea what I'm looking at/doing/something or other.
-
Kendall Merriman
United States San Jose California
-
Sol, you broke it!
Well, more accurately, you fixed it. Did you provide me a substitute that works?
Thanks for the work you do, by the way. This isn't meant as a complaint, I just want to know how to make my rolls work now.
-
Samuel Sol
Brazil São Paulo SP
All engines full to awesome land!
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
-
personwholives wrote: Sol, you broke it!
Well, more accurately, you fixed it. Did you provide me a substitute that works?
Thanks for the work you do, by the way. This isn't meant as a complaint, I just want to know how to make my rolls work now.
If I understood correctly, what you want to do is only have failures and no chance of success correct? If that is the case, leaving empty now works correctly. So 4d10c[,3] = (7, 3, 5, 7) = -1, counts 3 and lower as failure and nothing as success.
-
Kendall Merriman
United States San Jose California
-
6d6ic[,3] = (6, 2, 1, 6, 3, 6) = -4
Ok, that test roll has the wrong result. It should be 3, not -4.
6d6c[,3] = (3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2) = -2
-
-
yohanleafheart wrote: If I understood correctly, what you want to do is only have failures and no chance of success correct? If that is the case, leaving empty now works correctly. So yohanleafheart previously rolled 4d10c[,3] = (7, 3, 5, 7) = -1, counts 3 and lower as failure and nothing as success. Kendall expects it to work the other way around, counting 3 or lower as success and nothing as failure.
-
Samuel Sol
Brazil São Paulo SP
All engines full to awesome land!
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
-
sbszine wrote: yohanleafheart wrote: If I understood correctly, what you want to do is only have failures and no chance of success correct? If that is the case, leaving empty now works correctly. So yohanleafheart previously rolled 4d10c[,3] = (7, 3, 5, 7) = -1, counts 3 and lower as failure and nothing as success. Kendall expects it to work the other way around, counting 3 or lower as success and nothing as failure.
So it should be Count 3 or lower as success and nothing as failure 6d6ic[3] = (6, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3) = 3
-
Samuel Sol
Brazil São Paulo SP
All engines full to awesome land!
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
-
On (i)c[#1,#2] modifier, #1 is the base number for success (greater or equal on c, lower or equal on ic). #2 is the failure target (lower or equal on c, greater or equal on ic). Leaving any of those out will ignore that possibility.
-
Kendall Merriman
United States San Jose California
-
Ok, that's a slight change to the syntax.
Ic formerly just basically swapped the successes and failures.
Thanks for the info. This should be in the wiki or something.
-
Young & Lawful Good
United Kingdom Redhill Surrey
Support comes in many forms: community involvement, forum posts, submitting data, word-of-mouth advertising, financial donations... All of these are vital to this site, and you have my sincere thanks for participating in any of them.
Currently: banned as per http://rpggeek.com/article/9104203#9104203
-
personwholives wrote: Thanks for the info. This should be in the wiki or something. Is more explanation required beyond what is written here? http://rpggeek.com/wiki/page/Geek_Randomizer_Guide#count
-
Kendall Merriman
United States San Jose California
-
wiki wrote: The count success modifier changes the calculation from an straight sum to a counting. Every die rolled above A1, or the max value for the die if none given, counts as a success other rolls count as 0. If A2 is given any die equal or lower than that number is counted as a failure and removes 1 success. If you use the ic token, the count is inverted. Which means that the low numbers count as a success and the higher as a failure.
This isn't terribly clear, as far as description goes. I'd recommend something like the following:
wiki wrote: The count success modifier changes the calculation from an straight sum to a counting. Every die rolled above A1, or the max value for the die if none given, counts as a success other rolls count as 0. If A2 is given any die equal or lower than that number is counted as a failure and removes 1 success. If you use the ic token, the count is inverted, which means that every die rolled below A1 counts as a success, and every die rolled above A2 (if provided) counts as a failure.
This is a change from the old behavior for ic, where above A1 was a failure and below A2 was a success, or a straight inversion of the behavior for c. You don't need to provide this history, but the actual information about the behavior should probably be there.
Unfortunately, that page is locked, so I can't add the clarification myself.
And thanks for asking, Stello. Much better when I actually say what I mean, instead of just saying stuff and assuming everyone understands me, right?
-
Young & Lawful Good
United Kingdom Redhill Surrey
Support comes in many forms: community involvement, forum posts, submitting data, word-of-mouth advertising, financial donations... All of these are vital to this site, and you have my sincere thanks for participating in any of them.
Currently: banned as per http://rpggeek.com/article/9104203#9104203
-
I've made the appropriate edits to that section.
-
Kendall Merriman
United States San Jose California
-
Thanks, that's much more clear. Hopefully, there won't be any confusion on how that works now. Glad I could help make that language clearer.
-
|
|
|