Opposed Roll Probabilities

[Toboe LoneWolf]

Strangely enough through all my crawling on the interwebs I found no comprehensive listing for probabilities of winning an opposed roll, except for a buried post on the peginc forums that only listed probabilities for a Wildcard versus an Extra.

Because I am a huge dork, I endeavored to find said probabilities.

Because I am a huge lazy dork, I instead made a dice simulator to do all the estimation for me.

The results are summarized here: Savage Worlds Opposed Roll Probabilities.

I got tired of copy/pasting results so I recorded only values of interest for a player in SW:MLP and specifically its Clash of Wills mechanic. The results are surprising: basically if you don't have a +2 bonus to your Clash of Will skill, then you actually would be far better off just trying to hit them with Fighting (assuming, of course, that you have points in Fighting). In general, if you only have a +1 bonus you'll only succeed against a Wildcard roughly 60-70% of the time, unless you're going against a Extra, in which case it's 80-90%. Looking at the FND register, most characters typically have a d8 in their CoW skill/Attribute, and roughly only a quarter have a high chance of getting that +2 bonus (high Pace, Charisma, armed). Amusingly enough a d12 wildcard with a +1 modifier against a d8 wildcard will still only win 67% of the time.

Tl;dr: It's far more efficient to use Fighting instead of a Clash of Will attack in SW:MLP.

Especially if you pair up on Soldier and (Improved) Trademark Weapon. +3 Fighting bonus woooo! Load up with Iron Pony and Olympian Pony, and you have a Fighting +4 bonus for a combat machine. For the ultimate pony, also include Noble/Royal, take Luck/Great Luck for extra bennies, and drop the rest under the Smarts attribute, and you are friggin' unstoppable.

i think i spent too long on this spreadsheet

[Rodger Phillips Marsh]

This is interesting and really good work!

The thing to consider is that Clashes of Wills become more effective against already wounded/daunted enemies because their penalties are applied to their defense rolls as well, while wound penalties do not reduce a target's Parry, not to mention tech like Confound being able to seriously bring down a target's defense rolls with a little tag-teaming. Also, depending on what you're facing, enemies become more likely to have additional melee tech (interrupt attacks, etc) versus most CoW's being ranged, while even the most powerful enemies (at least ones listed in the SW:MLP book) have at least one attribute at a d8 or less. Fighting even dicier when you get into huge creatures like dragons who have massive toughness and can hit back with Strength d12+2 or more on damage with their claws.

I've said again and again that people don't really optimize as much as they should, but it's their decision on how they want to make their characters. I've also maintained that more characters should be taking Fighting because it has uses beyond just hitting enemies, especially when grappling becomes involved. Ultimately, GMs should establish what balance of physical combat/CoW combat they want and I'm generally in favor of a mix of the two within reason.
Edit: Also, sometimes it's not the best idea to punch your way out, as appealing as it is sometimes

[Toboe LoneWolf]

Sure, Clashes of Wills are more effective against already wounded/daunted enemies...but first they have to GET wounded/daunted. Once that happens, a simple +1 CoW bonus effectively becomes a +2 CoW and you're golden. The problem is cracking the nutter in the first place. And the easiest and fastest way to crack the nut is by Fighting.

Yes, there's ways to induce a Daunt or give CoW bonuses, but there's also just as many ways to negate them. Melee tech can be acquired and used by both sides, and the root matter is that statistically, Fighting is faster and more efficient.

And if I were going against a Dragon (which has no attributes below a d8)? You are deader than a doornail if you put all your eggs in one basket and chose Clash of Wills, because then you have no Parry to speak of and you are dead. Breath of fire or claws or tail sweep very much dead. In fact, if you go against a majority of any of the beastiary in SW:MLP which you pointed out have Fighting d8, if you did not take Fighting you have no Parry and you are screwed So Much. Unless the GM basically nerfs the monster and doesn't try to actually use it to its fullest ability. Basically, you can afford to disregard Clash of Wills - if, however, you disregard Fighting you are shooting yourself in the foot/hoof and statistically speaking all of your combat just got longer as everyone plays the whiff ping game until someone gets hurt. (It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye!)

What the stats are saying is that if you want to stop the mad scientist from setting off the megaton destructotron, or need to stop a bully from hurting you first, in SW:MLP you should first hit him in the face, then try talking him down. In general, Fighting has a higher success rate, whereas Clash of Wills means more time with characters flinging witticisms and prolonging the combat against the BBEG. Which in terms of story or setting rules may be perfectly fine, but it does mean overall longer time where nothing really happens. Which is weird - you'd think at least with MLP talking the bully down first would be better. But no, if you try talking the bully down in all likelihood the bully is going to get the punch in first.

Note: noticed a programming error on the Average Damage section - forgot to include Raise damage. Version2 has been uploaded.

[Rodger Phillips Marsh]

Jun 26, 2014 17:19:35 GMT -8 Toboe LoneWolf said:

And if I were going against a Dragon (which has no attributes below a d8)? You are deader than a doornail if you put all your eggs in one basket and chose Clash of Wills, because then you have no Parry to speak of and you are dead. Breath of fire or claws or tail sweep very much dead. In fact, if you go against a majority of any of the beastiary in SW:MLP which you pointed out have Fighting d8, if you did not take Fighting you have no Parry and you are screwed So Much. Unless the GM basically nerfs the monster and doesn't try to actually use it to its fullest ability. Basically, you can afford to disregard Clash of Wills - if, however, you disregard Fighting you are shooting yourself in the foot/hoof and statistically speaking all of your combat just got longer as everyone plays the whiff ping game until someone gets hurt. (It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye!)

I said above d8 or less (the listed adult dragon has a d8 Smarts and the juvenile even less), which is average to above-average for most characters, which makes sense because a dragon should be no picnic. I also did not advocate putting all your eggs in one basket; I've always recommended characters take two CoW skills (usually an opposed 'physical' and 'mental' one like Intimidate/Grace and Persuasion/Taunt respectively) and at least a d4 or d6 in Fighting. On the flip side, disregarding CoWs in the MLP universe hobbles you because you have no recourse in situations in which violence would escalate things or cause instant loss or death: Clash of Wills combat covers more situations than those where throwing punches makes sense. Not every enemy responds to being targeted with CoWs with physical violence and it's often in the group's best interest not to escalate things.

Jun 26, 2014 17:19:35 GMT -8 Toboe LoneWolf said:

What the stats are saying is that if you want to stop the mad scientist from setting off the megaton destructotron, or need to stop a bully from hurting you first, in SW:MLP you should first hit him in the face, then try talking him down. In general, Fighting has a higher success rate, whereas Clash of Wills means more time with characters flinging witticisms and prolonging the combat against the BBEG. Which in terms of story or setting rules may be perfectly fine, but it does mean overall longer time where nothing really happens. Which is weird - you'd think at least with MLP talking the bully down first would be better. But no, if you try talking the bully down in all likelihood the bully is going to get the punch in first.

Even in the example you give, the act of punching a bully would be a path taken by specific characters and has consequences beyond Taunting them back or some other option. The issue with Fighting also comes into actually damaging versus hitting, since weapons are less effective and more uncommon in the MLP universe and large fantasy creatures (like those pesky dragons )have huge Toughness values that make wounding them extremely difficult. Raises on physical damage cap off at +1d6 for Fighting but have no upper limit on CoWs.

In summary: Fighting is an important skill but it isn't the be-all-end-all of combat because most games of SW:MLP aren't dungeon crawls against trolls. I've been experimenting with a few changes to combat in general, including changes that speed combat up in general, and will be incorporating them into future revisions and materials.

[Toboe LoneWolf]

Actually damage is pretty darn easy. There's very little reason for every character in SW:MLP to not wear horseshoes (other than perhaps cost or weight, and horseshoes are pretty darn cheap & light); in addition to providing a +1 bonus to Bumps & Bruises they give +1d4 damage, which even with bare minimum d4 Strength is enough to take out a Vigor d8 character. Average d6 characters with studded horseshoes or a sling (or even just flinging random stuff, like a hairbrush) are enough to take out a Vigor d12. And like you said, most games of SW:MLP aren't dungeon crawls against trolls, so parties aren't going to go against things higher than Toughness 8 anyway. Or a dragon.

On more base level of average d6s across the board, the effectiveness gap between Fighting and Clash of Wills becomes even larger, statistically. The advantage of Clash of Wills comes strictly from a storytelling perspective. If I make a d12 Fighting character I can put a point into Persuasion and call it a day. On the other hand, if I make a CoW character I should, by your recommendation, put points into two clash of Will skills, a point or two into Fighting to not die whenever it occurs, points into the associated Attribute traits and various edges to attempt getting that CoW bonus, and even then I'll only be effective 50% of the time, because if you match two characters that both use the same CoW skill you effectively get no CoW bonus as it's a net wash.

I've always had this gut feeling that using Clash of Wills made combat take longer, but thought it was just "eeeeh it's probably just because we're not used to it." A year later and it still didn't get significantly faster. Only recently did I actually get off my ass and actually run the raw numbers. I was quite surprised to see the results, and thus posted them here, because I am a huge dork and numbers amuse me. I never thought statistically Fighting would be that much better. Storytelling wise yes, Clash of Wills would be better, but in terms of the raw numbers Fighting is more efficient.

[Rodger Phillips Marsh]

My game Lost Destiny featured a combat against a dragon that was resolved entirely with Clashes of Wills. The game also had instances of physical combat at appropriate moments: it's about context.

Against other similarly-sized creatures, yes. The Size modifier is figured in with Toughness, so larger creatures have disproportionately larger Toughness values compared with their Vigor. The point of me saying "it's not a dungeon crawl" also meant that punching and stabbing isn't a good or sometimes even usable option. This is tricky because it's not something that can be factored in statistically, but sure; in a stand-up hoofticuffs then Fighting-optimized characters have an advantage (in the absence of concerns of plot coherency, escalation, or especially large & tough enemies).

Clash of Wills-centric combat does take longer, but I've gotten a pretty much uniformly positive response so far because people enjoy working RP into combat more than 'who stabs who', which is the point. I've run identical encounters both online (including IHMS) and in person at a convention, with a group of players totally new to the system, and they picked it up very quickly and enjoyed the banter and roleplaying aspect of it and got through it fine. The online filter makes people much more meticulous and amplifies communication problems that don't come up in person. If it's not your thing, then that's fine; I just think that the statistical approach to your argument here overlooks some non-statistical factors that are rather particular to this game.

[Toboe LoneWolf]

Of course the statistical approach ignores non-statistical factors; that's like trying to quantify Things That Should Not Be Quantified, like religion, philosophy, and happiness. (Unless, of course, you're in the social sciences, in which case they have some arcane voodoo that they use to evaluate the happiness of people and it's always very interesting to see how they did it. Their seminars are always an intriguing snap-shot of the attempt to categorize the masses.)

Tabletop rpgs are an interesting mash-up of the plain cleanness of math and the non-quantifying value of acting. Some rules lean more on heavy simulation (GURPs) whereas others emphasize acting (FATE). Likewise, some players have a preference between roll-playing and roleplaying; both are perfectly valid styles of play. The statistics are simply there for people to use for their own reference. In some cases, it may be a deal-breaker, much like how some people don't like the small fudge factor of Savage Worlds that a d4 has slightly higher chance of hitting a TN6 than a d6. These are the numbers. Use as you will.

[Toboe LoneWolf]

Spreadsheet has been updated to include -1, -2 modifiers and comparisons with an Extra as the Attacker; simulator updated to include calculations for 3 dice damage.

General conclusions are still the same (man, Extras sure are meant to be run over; I was giggling so much at imagining a d6 Extra crashing into Wild Card like a brick wall).