Author Topic: mistaken implications of IP-proofing  (Read 32007 times)

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« on: March 09, 2012, 09:51:02 AM »
Ok, so I notice that several threads are now being derailed by this concept.  It's not my theory, so I don't know if what I am hearing is a bastardization of it or not.  But, what I am hearing is either deeply mistaken or based on some deeply mistaken hidden premises.  I want to take a few minutes and lay out its flaws. 

What's IP-proofing?
Note that this isn't my theory, so I will be doing my best to characterize it.  If I am mistaken, please correct me.  The term is "Iterative Probability proofing."  And, the idea is that in D&D (really, any RPG, I'd suppose) your character is going to be subject to a number of threats, which can effectively kill you.  So, with some probability a "catastrophic event" will occur -- you will fail the crucial save, get crit on by the crucial attack, and so on.  Over the course of your adventuring career, this probability will occur:  if there's only a 5% chance of suffering a catastrophic event in each encounter, over enough encounters that's going to converge to 100%.

Ok, so as a basic idea goes, that's totally fine.  It simply means that, if you're interested in making it over the long haul, you need some sort of defense against such things.  That defense could be rerolls, immunities, or the ability to recover from the failure.

Example 1:  suppose you will fail a save or die 10% of the time.  That means eventually you will fail one.  If you have a reroll, though, from one of any various magic items, so long as you're not subject to too many saving throws over the course of the day or what have you then you're fine.  It essentially resets your "IP counter" till you fail again.  Even the humble Fighter can take advantage of this.  At higher levels you might need more investment, as the frequency of such effects will increase, so you'll have to get more in the way of defenses. 

Example 2:  in the course of the fight, bad rolls, etc. have claimed the lives on one of the party.  One characters casts revivify on him, or delay death, or some similar effect so he can continue adventuring. 

As these examples indicate, I think IP-proofing is pretty straightforward, and not hard to attain.  It is a pretty subtle charopp concept, though, and one that I spend a little bit of time teaching new players.  It may be the case that some classes have more of it built in than others, but it's readily available in troupe play.  Arguably, a correctly optimized healbot cleric's job is something along those lines.  I mention this b/c it seems one vehement complaint about weaker classes is that they cannot do so. 

Basket Burner's Death Spiral
I don't like to call out people by name, but he's (assumed pronoun, sorry if it's mistaken) obsessed with this idea and it colors all his posts.  The idea, I take it, is that every time one of the members of the party fails against a catastrophic event it does one or both of the following.  First, it weakens the party for the rest of that encounter, increasing their probability of failure.  Second, it weakens that character in the long run due to level loss for raise dead or other wastes of resources. 

However, I also think this is not true, and missing some crucial premises.  Two obvious responses, and then I'll get to the more subtle one.  First, it assumes that every encounter is on the knife-edge of life and death.  That's probably not the case, even in other people's campaigns.  Second, this isn't Gygaxian AD&D -- revivify, delay death, and so on allow for people to come back to life without level loss.  Also, it's unclear to me how big a deal level loss is.  If catastrophic events are relatively rare (e.g., 10%), then the increased XP gains will lead the lower level guy to catch right back up before another catastrophic event occurs.  Even if he's facing an increased probability of doing so (e.g., 12%). 

Now, I anticipate that BB will say something to the effect of:  "all the resources you just spent raising that jackass just cost the party something, making it weaker."  So, that revivify the cleric cast could, in the absence of a jackass (a basket weaver?) could have used that slot for something more meaningful.  The problem I have with that logic is that it artificially divides out resources spent to ex ante IP proof and those spent ex post to IP proof. 

Here's what I mean, I think no one is going to say that a wizard casting Greater Mirror Image is wasting his resources.  It's a great spell that keeps you alive.  What, then, is the difference between that and Delay Death?  The only relevant difference, depending on the ability we're talking about, is whether that character is still in the fight or not.  That, in turn, depends on (1) how much fight there is left, and (2) whether you're on that knife-edge described above. 

Now, it may be the case that ex ante IP proofing is generally speaking more effective than ex post.  I'm not sure.  It might be true when it comes to character death, less so with other conditions. 

My real point, though, is that I don't see how there is any clear mapping from a character not being able to IP-proof themselves and relying on someone else in the party to do it, or on magic items to do it, and the supposed IP-proofed idea.

P.S.:  it occurs to me that there is also some ellision in the knife-edge scenario.  I've never played the most powerful character I can in a game.  That's not what I'm out for, I usually want to play a character of some sort.  The knife-edge cases would be charitably read as an encounter where for that given party it's nearly a matter of life and death.  But, I think it often colors character creation discussions as well.  If that's the case, though, then the implication is that everyone should be playing Pun-Pun or equivalents.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 11:28:25 AM by Unbeliever »

Offline littha

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2952
  • +1 Holy Muffin
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2012, 10:05:57 AM »
As much as I agree with you in general your explanation of probability is not good.

10% chance does not mean that it happens 1 time in 10, it means that each time you attempt something there is a 1/10 chance of it happening. It is a slight difference but it is entirely possible to do something 100 times and not have your 1/10 chance actually occur, just the way probability works.

The actual chance of a 1/10 chance happening once in 10 attempts is worked out as such:

The chance of not happening is P=(0.9)^10=34.86%
The chance of happening at least once=1-P=65.13%

Also Iterative probability will never reach a 100% chance, 99.9999999999...% sure but 100% is essentially infinite when discussing this kind of probability.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2012, 10:31:13 AM »
^ yeah, what Littha said.  Pardon the infelicities in math in the OP.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 11:27:38 AM by Unbeliever »

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10717
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2012, 10:37:23 AM »
A nice thesis, and one I agree with. I hadn't worked it out in my mind as clearly as this, but I have always favored building rerolls and such things into my characters exactly for this reason (I think of it as Murphy's Law in D&D). Also strangely enough I just had to solve a problem much like this for work a couple of days ago, and so had to go refresh myself on the equations for it...
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2012, 11:28:38 AM »
Someone doesn't understand probability very well. Even though most of the other details were accurate, the conclusions weren't, and the lack of understanding of probability and its impact really means you should leave discussing that concept to us... or I should say me, since no one else that gets it is here.

While I could easily set you straight now that I'm here if you were willing to be set straight it's obvious this is one of those threads created in order to argue against a caricature of an idea, one that misrepresents, misses, or loses its actual meaning and then calls that a win.

If I care enough and think there's people here that would learn I'll correct you later in another thread.

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2012, 11:36:50 AM »
If I care enough and think there's people here that would learn I'll correct you later in another thread.
i'd like that.

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2012, 11:45:35 AM »
Someone doesn't understand probability very well. Even though most of the other details were accurate, the conclusions weren't, and the lack of understanding of probability and its impact really means you should leave discussing that concept to us... or I should say me, since no one else that gets it is here.

While I could easily set you straight now that I'm here if you were willing to be set straight it's obvious this is one of those threads created in order to argue against a caricature of an idea, one that misrepresents, misses, or loses its actual meaning and then calls that a win.

If I care enough and think there's people here that would learn I'll correct you later in another thread.

You took a class on probability this semester?  That's great!  I look forward to seeing the results of your new knowledge. 

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2012, 12:12:02 PM »
Someone doesn't understand probability very well. Even though most of the other details were accurate, the conclusions weren't, and the lack of understanding of probability and its impact really means you should leave discussing that concept to us... or I should say me, since no one else that gets it is here.

While I could easily set you straight now that I'm here if you were willing to be set straight it's obvious this is one of those threads created in order to argue against a caricature of an idea, one that misrepresents, misses, or loses its actual meaning and then calls that a win.

If I care enough and think there's people here that would learn I'll correct you later in another thread.

You took a class on probability this semester?  That's great!  I look forward to seeing the results of your new knowledge.

Says the guy who thought that 50% meant 0% and 75% meant 100%, then claimed I was bad at probability... and then hasn't gotten any better since then, or else I would have let that one go.

So I suppose the real question is if there's more than one person that would benefit? Well there's probably two, since if he's still around he'd probably enjoy any sort of productive optimization discussion that doesn't "turn into a dick waving contest". But are there more than two? If not I can just PM people and save myself the trouble of dealing with basket weavers.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2012, 12:16:35 PM »
^Translation: "I'm talking out of my ass, so ignore me."
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2012, 12:18:41 PM »
Someone doesn't understand probability very well. Even though most of the other details were accurate, the conclusions weren't, and the lack of understanding of probability and its impact really means you should leave discussing that concept to us... or I should say me, since no one else that gets it is here.

While I could easily set you straight now that I'm here if you were willing to be set straight it's obvious this is one of those threads created in order to argue against a caricature of an idea, one that misrepresents, misses, or loses its actual meaning and then calls that a win.

If I care enough and think there's people here that would learn I'll correct you later in another thread.
I think I was extremely clear in the OP saying that if I was mistaken about anything someone should correct me.  I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about who understands probability better or anything.  Somehow I think a board that I post on in between breaks at work may not be my best intellectual work product. 

Here's the thing, though.  You run all over other threads blathering about your knowledge of this deep meta.  Here's a counterargument.  Either respond or shut up.  Please. 

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2012, 12:35:57 PM »
Says the guy who thought that 50% meant 0% and 75% meant 100%, then claimed I was bad at probability... and then hasn't gotten any better since then, or else I would have let that one go.

So I suppose the real question is if there's more than one person that would benefit? Well there's probably two, since if he's still around he'd probably enjoy any sort of productive optimization discussion that doesn't "turn into a dick waving contest". But are there more than two? If not I can just PM people and save myself the trouble of dealing with basket weavers.

Ah, so that's a "no" then?  And I'm speaking as the guy that posted his formulas and work every time we talked about probability.  And your response was not "here's where your work was wrong" or even "you should have used x formula instead of y".  Instead your response was limited to "that doesn't make sense to me"; which is the normal response from someone that knows nothing about the subject.  Probability isn't something you can eyeball without knowing the underlying principles - if it was, casinos would make far less money.

And yes, I did try to explain to you that in terms of probable outcomes (for the odds of something not happening), moving from 1% to 50% is less significant than moving from 98% to 99% - because it is.  It doesn't matter if that doesn't "make sense" to you, the math is what it is. 

I don't outright dismiss your other claims, even if I disagree with them; you're welcome to your opinion even when it's based on fallacious arguments.  But when it comes to real math, I won't let you pass off ignorance as knowledge. 

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2012, 12:43:29 PM »
Don't mistake trolling for ignorance.

And don't forget that this is not cRPG. It's not "optimize or die". A DM can scale the difficulty as appropriate and also make decisions based on how fun will it be for his players (and being dead is not fun for most people). That's a DMs job and privilege.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2012, 12:47:44 PM »
Someone doesn't understand probability very well. Even though most of the other details were accurate, the conclusions weren't, and the lack of understanding of probability and its impact really means you should leave discussing that concept to us... or I should say me, since no one else that gets it is here.

While I could easily set you straight now that I'm here if you were willing to be set straight it's obvious this is one of those threads created in order to argue against a caricature of an idea, one that misrepresents, misses, or loses its actual meaning and then calls that a win.

If I care enough and think there's people here that would learn I'll correct you later in another thread.
I think I was extremely clear in the OP saying that if I was mistaken about anything someone should correct me.  I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about who understands probability better or anything.  Somehow I think a board that I post on in between breaks at work may not be my best intellectual work product. 

Here's the thing, though.  You run all over other threads blathering about your knowledge of this deep meta.  Here's a counterargument.  Either respond or shut up.  Please.

Protip: If you don't want it to be hostile and antagonistic try not contradicting yourself with the lines right after that. Or your original post.

Mooncrow has no grasp of math and numbers as usual, which is disappointing as he did honestly seem to have been better.

And there's no one else actively posting now at all.

Regardless, you have managed to answer my question, in that there is at most two people that I wouldn't be wasting my time by addressing, so I'll get started on that PM.

Offline ariasderros

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2507
  • PM me what you're giving Kudos for please.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2012, 12:48:21 PM »
Normally, I would be reading this, open the reply box, decide what I had to say didn't need said, and close out. But this is just too ridiculous.

Okay. IP-proofing is an important metagame issue. The argument about how to use the resources available (proactively or re-actively).

I haven't seen any of these other arguments that are being referenced here, and I'm curious about what the conversations could have said that hadn't come up on the old board.

This thread is not about that anymore. It has become about one group trying to belittle BB, and BB being obstinate toward them. I realize that isn't how it started, and that it apparently started elsewhere. I do realize that, I just don't care.

@ BB: This thread was opened up, quite blatantly, just to hold an intellectual conversation with you on the topic. Then you came in and acted like an ass. It was apparently bleed-over from elsewhere, but this thread was opened with the intent of getting past that.

@ Everyone engaging BB in this flame-war:  :beathorse

NOW:  :backtotopic
My new Sig
Hi, Welcome

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2012, 01:02:56 PM »
Mooncrow has no grasp of math and numbers as usual, which is disappointing as he did honestly seem to have been better.


Feel free to mathematically show how my grasp on numbers is weak - that's the nice thing about math, when someone is wrong, it's not hard for someone that does know what they're doing to refute it.  But when talking about math, the refutation has to be in numbers, not words. 

I'm always happy to discuss any subject with others who are knowledgeable on the subject.  You've demonstrated that you know certain aspects of D&D very well, so I'll be happy to continue to discuss that subject with you.  But if you want to claim to know probability, you have to back up your claims, and thus far you haven't even tried. 

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2012, 01:14:53 PM »
Thank you Ariasderros. 

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2012, 01:18:17 PM »
Normally, I would be reading this, open the reply box, decide what I had to say didn't need said, and close out. But this is just too ridiculous.

Okay. IP-proofing is an important metagame issue. The argument about how to use the resources available (proactively or re-actively).

I haven't seen any of these other arguments that are being referenced here, and I'm curious about what the conversations could have said that hadn't come up on the old board.

This thread is not about that anymore. It has become about one group trying to belittle BB, and BB being obstinate toward them. I realize that isn't how it started, and that it apparently started elsewhere. I do realize that, I just don't care.

@ BB: This thread was opened up, quite blatantly, just to hold an intellectual conversation with you on the topic. Then you came in and acted like an ass. It was apparently bleed-over from elsewhere, but this thread was opened with the intent of getting past that.

@ Everyone engaging BB in this flame-war:  :beathorse

NOW:  :backtotopic

Look at how it was presented. It clearly wasn't intended as an intellectual discussion. It clearly wasn't intended with getting past that. And then look at the other posts. That said, I've taken what objective value exists out of the thread, so I treat it the same as any others with no competitive value now.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2012, 01:18:49 PM »
Thank you Ariasderros. 
You do realize he accused you of trolling, right?
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8324
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2012, 01:21:50 PM »
While I could easily set you straight now that I'm here if you were willing to be set straight it's obvious this is one of those threads created in order to argue against a caricature of an idea, one that misrepresents, misses, or loses its actual meaning and then calls that a win.

If I care enough and think there's people here that would learn I'll correct you later in another thread.
Regardless, you have managed to answer my question, in that there is at most two people that I wouldn't be wasting my time by addressing, so I'll get started on that PM.
Don't waste everyone's time posting to say that you won't be posting. You're just going out of your way to shit in someone else's thread.

My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2012, 01:25:12 PM »
Don't complain that someone posts in a thread because they were dragged into it specifically by name, and don't complain about someone being there when they say they are leaving.