suggestion on attribute notation: 7+M3 instead of 7M3

[narsilion]

Attribute notation is very counterintuitive. We are used to decimal counting system, so we instinctually read 7M3 as "7 masteries and 3 points". It is very inconvinient when you have some new players in your group.

Adding plus sign to the notation would solve this problem completely. Moreover, you can write "7+3M" or "3M+7", whatever you prefer.

[AndrewTBP]

I've never had trouble, but if you want to match algebra, you want 7+3M

😉

Yes, I did Pure Mathematics at university, why? 

Edited June 24, 2023 by AndrewTBP

[David Scott]

I'd be interested to hear of anyone else who has had a problem with this at their table.

I don't use masteries until the until rolls are need and keep the numbers raw. In your example, 7M3, I'd leave it as 67 as bonuses often change this. No one had ever had a problem with dividing by 20.

[jajagappa]

3 hours ago, David Scott said:

I'd be interested to hear of anyone else who has had a problem with this at their table.

I never had an issue with notation, but then with HQG, I almost never had anyone close to 2 masteries. So a notation of 7 worked perfectly well. 

 

[el_octogono]

5 hours ago, David Scott said:

I'd be interested to hear of anyone else who has had a problem with this at their table.

I have the same problem as @narsilion I tend to read it in reverse. One alternative I've considered is writing masteries as exponent.  Instead of 14M2 just 14², or 7M3 as 7³.

Edited June 24, 2023 by el_octogono

[Lordabdul]

On 6/24/2023 at 1:51 AM, David Scott said:

I'd be interested to hear of anyone else who has had a problem with this at their table.

I have the same problem -- I constantly have to remind myself to "read it the wrong way". I think I even mentioned it to Ian Cooper when I met him.

7M3 meaning "7 plus Masteries 3" is just... nonsensical to me.

[mfbrandi]

17 hours ago, Lordabdul said:

7M3 meaning "7 plus Masteries 3" is just... nonsensical to me.

On 6/24/2023 at 9:51 AM, David Scott said:

I'd leave it as 67 as bonuses often change this. No one had ever had a problem with dividing by 20.

So is there anyone who wouldn’t rather just have a single number and do the maths as and when needed?

Meanwhile, in some brave new world of vigesimal notation …

[jajagappa]

58 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

So is there anyone who wouldn’t rather just have a single number and do the maths as and when needed?

Me. The number of masteries is very intuitive when figuring out when to bump or not bump.  I have no interest in doing "the maths".

[AndrewTBP]

2 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

So is there anyone who wouldn’t rather just have a single number and do the maths as and when needed?

Me. I've never had any trouble with Hero Wars / HeroQuest / HQ:G / QW masteries notation. 

[Lordabdul]

6 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

So is there anyone who wouldn’t rather just have a single number and do the maths as and when needed?

Agreed with @jajagappa : the number of masteries directly indicates the number of bumps (or "successes" in QW parlance) so to me it's important to keep it separate, since it doesn't require any math. My issue is just with the order of the notation.   Instead of "7M3" I would have preferred "7+M3" ("7 plus 3 masteries") or, at best, "3M7" ("3 masteries + 7"... but that one is just as ambiguous as the official one)

At this point however I assume that changing the notation isn't on the table anyway.

[jajagappa]

41 minutes ago, Lordabdul said:

Instead of "7M3" I would have preferred "7+M3" ("7 plus 3 masteries")

The introduction of the "+" makes it very clear in my opinion. However, in writing and printing a rule book, that extra plus adds a fair amount of extra text.

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

The introduction of the "+" makes it very clear in my opinion. However, in writing and printing a rule book, that extra plus adds a fair amount of extra text.

It would clarify it indeed, because a notation like "XMY" doesn't make it clear whether the M is attached to the X or the Y.  I don't imagine that a single "+" character would affect the text and layout much but who knows... it really depends on whether the number of people this would help is a small minority or a large minority.  I suspect that something like this has a very strong cultural component, i.e. maybe the vast majority of people in anglosaxon countries prioritize attaching the M to Y, whereas other cultures/languages work the other way. I've already been baffled in the past by how mathematical notations learned in high-school/university differ between US/UK/Canada and France.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Lordabdul

[mfbrandi]

2 hours ago, Lordabdul said:

maybe the vast majority of people in anglosaxon countries prioritize attaching the M to Y, whereas other cultures/languages work the other way

Maybe, but my poor broken anglophone dragonewt brain, cannot get over the idea that the most significant digits should go on the left and the least significant on the right. Other people are just smarter and more flexible than I am. It is why I am going extinct.

I could never get my head around Traveller’s hex-string UPPs, either.

I think it was Alex von Schlippenbach who could never get the initialism of the London Jazz Composers’ Orchestra right and always said “LCJO” — this even led to a spin-off small group called “Elsie Jo”. Some things we know are wrong, but we are so broken that they … just … won’t … budge!

[jajagappa]

2 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

cannot get over the idea that the most significant digits should go on the left and the least significant on the right.

Think of it like an exponential power. X raised to the Y. X mastered to the Y.

[SDLeary]

4 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

Maybe, but my poor broken anglophone dragonewt brain, cannot get over the idea that the most significant digits should go on the left and the least significant on the right. Other people are just smarter and more flexible than I am. It is why I am going extinct.

Really, it kind of is already. The most significant digit is the one that you use constantly, the least significant is the one that you only use in situations where needed.

SDLeary

[mfbrandi]

Look, thanks for all the comments, but:

• I do understand how it works — but then I take my eye off the ball for 5 minutes and … pow!
  (And like Alex von S., I think I am stuck with that. I’ll live.)
• I am not lobbying for a change
• I was just asking, because if everybody had hated the status quo, the situation would have been ridiculous

I must be said that the OP’s suggestion has the virtues of:

• not requiring anyone to get the twenties and the units in the right order:
  a+b = b+a
• using a widely understood (if not universal) notation:
  “+” for addition
  “ab” for the product of a and b (i.e. a×b)
  you just have to grasp that m = 20 (or = 20)
• respecting the order of arithmetical operations:
  7+3m = 7+(3×m) = 7+60 = 3m+7 = (3×m)+7 = 60+7 = 67
• being indifferent as to whether the “m” comes before or after the number of twenties:
  3m = 3×m = m×3 = m3 = 60

These seem considerable virtues for the cost of a single character, so full marks to @narsilion.

[narsilion]

On 6/24/2023 at 10:51 AM, David Scott said:

I'd be interested to hear of anyone else who has had a problem with this at their table.

I don't use masteries until the until rolls are need and keep the numbers raw. In your example, 7M3, I'd leave it as 67 as bonuses often change this. No one had ever had a problem with dividing by 20.

A single number would work great if you dropped d20 in favor of d10. Then 36 would simply mean 3 masteries and 6 points to test, or 67 would mean 6 masteries and 7 points.

Using the single number when you use d20 forces you to do unnecesary calculations, just like 7M3 forces you to recall this strange form of notation. Either way you absorb some part of your RAM = distract yourself a bit. I just proposed small fix to avoid this small bit of distraction

[SDLeary]

Considering that the only die that you need at the table for each player is 1d20, I'm not really sure how you could forget how things are numbered. I mean, I learned the notation when HeroWars came out, have played the game off and on (ie. VERY sporadically) over the years, and never really had any issues.

I can see some situations where someone new to the game might have issue, especially if they have all their dice on the table. My solution to that though would be to advise them to put away all but the d20.

SDLeary

P.S. – I had more issues with Pendragon, being a d20 game, and having notations OVER 20. Remembering how to apply the overage in that game was really more of an issue than the notation here.

Edited June 28, 2023 by SDLeary

[BruceMri]

My years on the World of Darkness incline me to write 7***, but I’m prepared to believe that’s an idiosyncrasy. I do like 7+3M a lot, and yes, I’d much rather not divide. The stroke I had some years ago and the autonomic nervous trouble I’m having now both important what was already fairly weak mental math ability. I will go some lengths to avoid multiplying and dividing when not absolutely necessary. 

[SDLeary]

One thing I think that might help, and someone in our group figured out quickly...

Your Ability chance is the number to the Left; the number you roll equal or under. The M and number you have on the right are the number of "Bumps" you have; the number of adjustments to your level of success you can make. No real need to consider an absolute ability level. 

Only other thing you need to remember is that Masteries off opponents cancel out, still something that doesn't affect the number to the left.

SDLeary

[AndreasDavour]

I've felt the notation to be a bit weird since day one, but it was easier to use when you had the funky rune character as a divisor. That way you read a number, stopped and saw something weird and was forced to think about how to parse what was following.

Having played QW a bit with the 1M2 notation I found it was a bit confusing again, but I think the notation with a plus sign is ugly. Using 3(M3) looks better to me, as it shows clearly that the mastery and the number belong together. It does look just as ugly, though.

When I explained it to my players, I just said "roll under the first number" and it made sense as it came first so clearly it was the most important one.

[mfbrandi]

4 hours ago, AndreasDavour said:

I just said "roll under the first number" and it made sense as it came first so clearly it was the most important one.

Hmm … 191 versus 119, or even 12. So which is “more important”, the number before or after the ? 😉

[jrutila]

8 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Only other thing you need to remember is that Masteries off opponents cancel out, still something that doesn't affect the number to the left.

With QW you don't even have to remember to do that. You just sum up the successes and compare them.

[Lordabdul]

On 6/28/2023 at 9:34 AM, AndreasDavour said:

When I explained it to my players, I just said "roll under the first number" and it made sense as it came first so clearly it was the most important one.

That's a nice way to put it actually, thanks.

[DreadDomain]

On 6/27/2023 at 9:21 PM, narsilion said:

A single number would work great if you dropped d20 in favor of d10. Then 36 would simply mean 3 masteries and 6 points to test, or 67 would mean 6 masteries and 7 points.

Absolutely this. Because of the mastery mechanics, I would have prefered QW to use a d10. Since that boat has sailed, I am ok with 9M2 (never had any problem to roll against the first number and use the second one as bumps) but aestheticaly, am not really fond of the 'M' notation. I would prefer 9|2 or 9².

Replacing "M" with another symbol is fine but adding to it with "+" or whatever, I just find uglier.

Edited June 30, 2023 by DreadDomain