Life Tip: Reflect on Odds, Not Results

(Disclaimer: this is not a 'simple trick’. It takes time and effort to actively apply this approach, and the difficulty of doing this depends on your own life experiences. Everyone has different goals, too.)

If you want to grow as a person, you need to self-reflect on your behaviour. However, there’s a lot of ways that self-reflection can actually make you drive out of alignment with your goals instead of towards them. Here’s one way to improve your self-analysis skills below - courtesy of JoINrbs, Slay the Spire and online poker.


FOCUS ON ODDS, NOT RESULTS


I often watch JoINrbs play Slay the Spire on YouTube. He comes from a background of online poker, so his approach to the game is very cool. I assume he’s not the first person to focus on odds more than results, but his cross-application of mindset into Slay the Spire inspired me to apply the mindset from there into to real life. I pasted the snappy version above, but here’s a slightly elaborated version of the life tip below:

"When you self-reflect, ponder if you had made the best decision with the info you had -- not whether or not your decision ended up being successful."


How did we get here? Let's start by talking about games, since this is obviously good game advice too.

What builds suspense in pretty much every element in life is when you care about something but are missing crucial information relating to it. And hey - it turns out every challenging game has unknown outcomes everywhere! You don't know if you’re fast enough to hit the ball. You don't know if your enemy has a trap card. You don't know if you’re going to roll something amazing or awful. You don’t know if your teammate is going to pull through or fail.

The problem is that you usually need to make decisions without being 100% sure what the outcome will be. Let’s use a scenario to exemplify this.

- You’re in a room with a fountain.
- You only have 1 health left.
- The only door leads to a room with a difficult boss fight.
- Drinking from the fountain will either:
> heal you to full health (60% chance).
> deal 1 damgae to you (40% chance).
Do you drink?

Let's say you drink from the fountain… and die. The immediate player reaction may be "Jeez, I shouldn't have drank from that fountain."

But... nope, you had still made the right decision! There's no way you could have killed the final boss with only 1 health. Fate/luck didn't go your way this time, but if you found yourself in that situation a second time, it’d still be correct to make that decision again if your goal was to actually slay the boss instead of just making it to the boss room.

Joinrbs frequently explains this concept in Slay the Spire, when he takes what look like "risky" plays such as fighting difficult Elite enemies early on. As he explains it: while fighting hard enemies now increases damage taken in the next fight (therefore looking riskier), it's actually way better odds for beating the game than taking the 'safe' path.

To oversimplify it, you can think about paths A and B.
Path A: 60% chance of surviving this fight, then a 60% chance of beating the game.
Path B: 90% chance of surviving this fight, then a 20% chance of beating the game.
New players, due to lack of experience, can’t exactly predict what the second percentage chance will be for winning, so they naturally gravitate towards the strategy of dealing with the most immediate threats only. To improve, though, you’ll eventually have to shift towards being okay with taking short-term risks.

Q: What does this have to do with the idea of thinking about odds instead of results?
A: It’s easy to self-reflect on a good decision that went wrong, and erroneously think you had made the wrong choice. Usually when this happens, it’s because you had taken an earlier risk that technically had a better overall chance of meeting your goal, but it didn’t pan out this time.

The focus of your self-improvement should be making good decisions under present variables rather than making decisions that would have worked for last time’s variables. The latter informs the former, but they’re not the same.


Anyway, time for real life.
In real life you'll also have to make difficult decisions without a clear outcome. And sometimes… things will really not work out for you. I’m sorry.

“Do I look like a 0-damage boss to you?”

“Do I look like a 0-damage boss to you?”

But what's been useful to me, and hopefully to you too, is to consider all of the information you have at the moment of a decision, and knowing that with the options in front of you, you may have still done the right thing. What matters in self-improvement is optimizing your ability to make judgement calls.

The actual outcome of your choice (ie succeeding or failing) is most useful as a suggestion as to whether or not your original calculation of odds was correct. For example, if the risk you took in your essay or proposal was shot down for a reason you hadn't thought of - it doesn't necessarily mean the risk wasn't worth taking, but rather you had miscalculated the risk in the first place. You can re-calibrate your ability to assess odds, and your ability to execute a strategy. Similarly, if things went great because someone misinterpreted something in your favour, try to have the humility to recognize that you had technically made a sub-optimal choice but lucked out this time.

And, in general, it’s good to know there's always tons and tons of unknowns. You'll kind of always be hit with random stuff that can be accounted for but never circumvented or alleviated. The best you can really do is play the odds, and get better at reading them. Over time, if you're great at self-reflection, you may find that things will start looking just a little more in your favour.

Have you optimized your contact with us? Consider signing up for our newsletter!
Or check out our
Facebook and Twitter, if you want to be hip hook hand car door.

Stay lofty!


(PS: One important thing to remember is that different goals will change your decisions. For example, the goal of “maximizing your chance of seeing the boss” is different from “maximizing your chance of killing the boss”. Your goal may be to optimize consistency instead of optimizing maximum gain, and that’s just as valid.)

Captain's Log: Rosalind

"We should make a healer."
- Mitchell, at some point in development

The reason Rosalind entered the game was that simple. But she’s gone through a few iterations between her time as Henry V and today, and we’ll walk through the interesting ones.

Mechanics

Original: “You win if everyone is alive by round 8.”

Current: “You win if everyone else is alive when the game ends or on round 8. If another captain would die, instead Reveal and match their health to yours.”

So yes, she plays as a healer. You spend your rounds pacifying violence, stalling for time, forming alliances and protecting everyone else. Because Rosalind wants people to survive for 8 rounds, and Captain’s Gambit ends upon victory, we get into an interesting side effect: the threat of Rosalind winning before you can finish the game encourages captains to start killing each other as soon as possible. This stops players from spending the first half of the game doing nothing but overcharge - in other words, adding this healer to the captain pool increases average aggression, even if she’s not in the current game.

SAS+2.jpg

The additional bonus of having a healing-based win condition is that aggressive players an easy excuse to start smacking. One of the earlier problems of the game was that the first player to attack another had an immediate target painted on their head - but now, because of the threat of Rosalind, you have a lot more persuasive freedom to come across as a helpful leader.

Interestingly, the most difficult part of Rosalind’s development wasn’t really finding balanced mechanics as much as finding mechanics that could actually fit on the space of the card. When working with physical games it turns out there’s a very real logistics problem of figuring out how to cram as many words as possible into a small text box while keeping things both clear and brief… that’s been the true challenge.

Lore

Rosalind Big.png

Our first draft of Rosalind was named Henry V - I liked how his character did his best and then died anyway, and I thought of him as a kinda squid-ish person.

A bit later we noticed that there was only like one woman in Captain's Gambit, and since Richard III was already here, we decided to trade off the mirror aspect of "Henry vs Richard; save vs kill everyone" to get another theatrical production (As You Like It) and another woman in the game. Mitchell suggested Rosalind, so here we are!

Rosalind is my favourite visual design in CG - I love the colours and the feeling of someone who keeps everyone else alive in order to actually just win herself later on.

Obviously every captain has a different origin story, but you may have also noticed that some captains started as a necessity for a character while others started with a mechanic idea that later had an identity attached to them. How it is, I guess.

rosalind+%281%29.jpg

The final infusion of lore, that makes Rosalind feel most like Rosalind, is allowing her to win from the victory of others. Because Rosalind in this play is a highly social person, regardless of her current gender she is doing something in service of companionship; thus, having the player seek a potential suitor and ask to work alongside them for victory is quite fitting of her abilities. It also makes her more balanced.

And that’s Rosalind!

“If I were a woman I would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased me, complexions that liked me and breaths that I defied not: and, I am sure, as many as have good beards or good faces or sweet breaths will, for my kind offer, when I make curtsy, bid me farewell.”

  • Rosalind, As You Like It, Act V Scene 4

Do you want more friends? Consider signing up for our newsletter! Once a month you’ll get salutations from us and some news too. Or: check out our Facebook and Twitter.

Stay lofty!

GM Tips: You Don’t Always Need to Roll

In most roleplaying games, rolling dice is an essential part of the game. It adds a nice spice of randomness in determining whether you succeed at something. Want to hit the monster with an axe? Roll to attack. Want to pickpocket the shopkeeper? Roll to steal. Want to move silently past the guards? Roll to sneak. It’s a pretty good system, and most of the time rolling dice is a lot of fun. But I want you to read this example and see if you notice anything off about it:

Game Master (GM): The party has just snuck into the evil wizard’s castle. Before you is a locked iron door. You see no doorknob, no keyhole, and no switch to open it. What would you like to do?
Player (P): Can I break it down?
GM: You can try. Roll a Strength check.
P: [Rolls]. 12?
GM: No, that’s not high enough. The door holds against your assault.
P: Can I try again?
GM: Sure.
P: [Rolls]. Damn, 9. Can I try again?
GM: Sure.
P: [Rolls]. 13?
GM: Nope.
P: Can I try again?
GM: Okay.
P: [Rolls] 11?
GM: Nope.
P: [Rolls] 14?
GM: Nope.
P: [Rolls] 18?
GM: Yes, that’s high enough! You slam your shoulder into the door one final time and finally it gives way and thuds to the floor. You and your companions enter the room and continue searching for the wizard.

Scenarios like this one happen all the time. The player wants to do something, rolls, and fails. So they try again. And again. And again. Until finally they succeed and the game moves on. So what’s the problem here? The problem is that the rolls are pointless.

Think about it this way: when should we be rolling dice? In my opinion, there are two conditions we need to meet to justify a die roll:

1)     The action has both a chance of success and failure; and
2)     The action’s success or failure carries consequences.

In the previous example, neither of these things are really true. While we could fail an individual roll, since we can keep trying over and over at no cost we are guaranteed to eventually succeed. There’s no real risk of failure. Frankly, the door might as well not exist since we know for certain that we will ultimately break it down.

So as a game master, how could we improve this door challenge? I have four suggestions:

Option 1: If Success/Failure is Guaranteed, Don’t Roll

We already do this a lot in game without realizing it. We don’t ask players to constantly roll Constitution checks to see if they suddenly stop breathing, or Dexterity checks to see if they trip while walking down the street, or a Strength check every time they want to pick up an item. Instead, we only call for these rolls when there’s a chance they might not be able to do it. We ask for a Constitution check when they are trying to hold their breath underwater, or a Dexterity check when they are running on ice, or a Strength check when they try to pick up a massive boulder. Same thing goes for if something is impossible. For example, if a player tries to throw their dagger straight in front of them so hard that it flies all the way around the earth and hits the enemy behind them, in the vast majority of cases we don’t need a die roll (unless there’s some magical shenanigans going on). The game master can just say “nope, that did not work” and move on.

So if you want the players to break down the door, just let them do it:

Game Master (GM): The party has just snuck into the evil wizard’s castle. Before you is a locked iron door. You see no doorknob, no keyhole, and no switch to open it. What would you like to do?
Player (P): Can I break it down?
GM: Yes you can! You slam your shoulder into the door and it gives way and thuds to the floor. You and your companions enter the room and continue searching for the wizard.

And if you don’t want them to break it down, don’t let them try:

Game Master (GM): The party has just snuck into the evil wizard’s castle. Before you is a locked iron door. You see no doorknob, no keyhole, and no switch to open it. What would you like to do?
Player (P): Can I break it down?
GM: No, the door is too strong. You’ll have to find another way.

Option 2: Make Failure Add Pressure

While option 1 is valid sometimes, it gets boring if you use it too much. After all, dice rolling is fun! So what if failing once or twice isn’t the end of the world, but if you fail too many times there will be consequences? Here’s an example:

Game Master (GM): The party has just snuck into the evil wizard’s castle. Before you is a locked iron door. You see no doorknob, no keyhole, and no switch to open it. What would you like to do?
Player (P): Can I break it down?
GM: You can try. Roll a Strength check.
P: [Rolls]. 12?
GM: No, that’s not high enough. The door holds against your assault.
P: Can I try again?
GM: Sure.
P: [Rolls]. Damn, 9. Can I try again?
GM: Sure.
P: [Rolls]. 13?
GM: Nope.
P: Can I try again?
GM: Unfortunately, before you can try again you hear a group of guards shout behind you. They must have heard you banging against the door and have come to stop you. You and your companions turn around and ready your weapons. Everyone, roll Initiative.

Adding in a combat encounter is an easy way to add pressure, but there are tons of other ways to do it. Maybe if they take too long the evil wizard will escape. Or maybe they’ll summon a giant demon. Or maybe they’ll murder some puppies, idk, evil stuff. The point is that if you keep a tally of how many times the party fails at a given task (or how many times they fail across an entire dungeon/campaign), you can use it to create scaling consequences.

Option 3: Make Failure Limit Options

This is a pretty classic solution. If you fail at something, you can’t try it again and are forced to try something new:

Game Master (GM): The party has just snuck into the evil wizard’s castle. Before you is a locked iron door. You see no doorknob, no keyhole, and no switch to open it. What would you like to do?
Player (P): Can I break it down?
GM: You can try. Roll a Strength check.
P: [Rolls]. 12?
GM: No, that’s not high enough. The door holds against your assault.
P: Can I try again?
GM: No, the door is too strong. You’ll have to find another way.

While this might feel bad to the player, it actually is an opportunity for the whole party to flex their problem solving skills. Now instead of trying to smash it over and over again they’ll need to get creative. Maybe they could search around for a secret button that unlocks the door. Or maybe they could backtrack and try to find another passage forward. Or maybe they can use a teleportation spell to warp the door to another dimension, idk, players are weird. Keep in mind that if you want to use this option you should think of at least a handful of ways your players could solve their problem. A good rule of thumb I use is think of at least three ways the party could succeed. If you can think of at least three the party can probably think of something.

Option 4: Make Success Into a Spectrum

This one involves a bit of planning. Instead of using a normal Difficulty Check (DC) to determine if an action succeeds, you could set multiple DCs which indicate varying degrees of success (i.e. <6 = critical failure, 6-10 = failure, 11-15 = success, >16 = critical success). Here are some examples:

Game Master (GM): The party has just snuck into the evil wizard’s castle. Before you is a locked iron door. You see no doorknob, no keyhole, and no switch to open it. What would you like to do?
Player (P): Can I break it down?
GM: You can try. Roll a Strength check.
P: [Rolls]. Natural 20!
GM: Nice! You manage to shatter the door with one mighty punch. Because you did it so swiftly you are confident that no one will have heard it. You and your companions enter the room and continue searching for the wizard.

Game Master (GM): The party has just snuck into the evil wizard’s castle. Before you is a locked iron door. You see no doorknob, no keyhole, and no switch to open it. What would you like to do?
Player (P): Can I break it down?
GM: You can try. Roll a Strength check.
P: [Rolls]. 13?
GM: You slam into the door and the impact echoes down the hall behind you. You charge again, harder this time, and you can feel it begin to buckle. Finally, with one last hit you break the door off its hinges and tumble with it into the room. Just then, you hear a group of guards shout behind you. They must have heard you banging against the door and have come to stop you. You and your companions turn around and ready your weapons. Everyone, roll Initiative.

Game Master (GM): The party has just snuck into the evil wizard’s castle. Before you is a locked iron door. You see no doorknob, no keyhole, and no switch to open it. What would you like to do?
Player (P): Can I break it down?
GM: You can try. Roll a Strength check.
P: [Rolls]. Oh no, a 1!
GM: You charge into the door and feel something crack. For a moment you think it was the door, but then the pain begins to radiate through your body. You’re pretty sure you’ve broken something in your arm and you take [rolls] 8 points of damage. The door looks unharmed.

You as a game master have a lot of creative freedom with this method, which can lead to a lot of interesting scenarios for your players. You can also tinker with the DCs the create the perfect challenge for your players (i.e. How many DCs you want? How spread apart are they? Do you want a DC for critical failure? Do you want one for critical success?), but I’d suggest having around 3-4 different potential outcomes. Keep in mind though that it can take either a lot of preparation or improv skills to do convincingly, so you may not want to use this method all the time.


That’s all for now. Hopefully I’ve got you to think a bit more about when you should roll dice and when you shouldn’t. If you’ve got any other tips about dice rolling, please leave them in the comments below!

 

If you liked this blog post why not roll on over to our newsletter sign-up? That way you can keep up with all things Cloudfall. You can also check out our Facebook and Twitter.

Stay lofty!