Hey that's a great idea! I totally saw what you meant after I read your post. The suggestion you gve to alleviate that is great, it totally clarifies the intent in my opinion.

Originally posted by mouseodoom
Example: Stamina = Vigor + Will x 2 is generally taken to mean Will would be worth two times Vigor. The character sheet shows a formula of (Vigor + Will x 2) which, while using parenthesis in this case is nifty, it's not terribly helpful cause it's technically wrong.

Well,..for the Character Sheet, those parenthesis are merely meant to perform the same task as they would in a literary sentence, not as an equation. They are being used to set "Vigor + Will x 2" aside as a momentary explanation/clarification of what "Stamina" is, so that the player sees what's expected to fill in the blank that immediatly follows. I suppose I could put it directly after "Stamina" but before the ":",..and THEN place the blank..... I was just worried that this might look...obtuse... Essentially,...that change would look like this:
Stamina (Vigor + Will x 2): ______

However,..what you have said (and what I originally was doing) conflicts with what I have been recently told by someone else (concerning the use of parenthesis within an equation,..see further comments below, after the next quote text block).

Additionally,... something you said above struck me as not making any sense... I beg you to explain how "Vigor + Will x 2 is generally taken to mean Will would be worth two times Vigor", which in an equation would look like this: Will = 2 x Vigor

Vigor + Will x 2 looks nothing like Will = 2 x Vigor to me.. Please help me understand this logic, since this seems completely incorrect considering everything I learned from Algebra class...

Originally posted by mouseodoom
As I understand it, the way Stamina is actually calculated (from reading the description) is: Stamina = (Vigor + Will) x 2 (or x 3 if you have Toughness).

That is correct.

Hmnnn,..now whereas I also agree that this use of parenthesis makes it more obvious what I want the players to do,...that's different from what I had heard from someone else who had recently corrected me concerning the usage that you reccomend. I was told by Byrne Viktmn that anytime you have a math formula, if there is no parenthesis marks used within a string equation, then the calculations occur in order of appearance within the equation. I had, in fact, changed several such equations to reflect this piece of advice, since I was told that placing parenthesis within an equation such as this,... X = (A + B) x C .... was superfluous, since it worked the exact same way without the parenthesis. Is this not the case? Have I been given the wrong information? Please,..if so, send me a reference that shows this, since I wish to make sure I use the correct method using a validated mathematical rule. (Also,..I want to have validated evidence to show Byrne Viktmn who chastised me for actually having it as Stamina = (Vigor + Will) x 2 in the first place, as well as several other such eqations used in the Martial Styles.) Essentially what he was advocating was that (A + B) x 2 is the same as (A + B x 2) is the same as A + B x 2.

Originally posted by mouseodoom
Anyway, using this convention would help eliminate confusion and necessitate less fine-toothed reading of the compendium.

I do agree that we need to use the proper convention (or at least the less confusing one if they all are the same), absolutely. However,..now I'm confused as to who's opinion is actually correct. Please someone find the mathematical rule/convention verbatim from a textbook and feed it to me here.... I certainly wish to clear this up ASAP..

Scottie

Originally posted by Scott Jones
Additionally,... something you said above struck me as not making any sense... I beg you to explain how "Vigor + Will x 2 is generally taken to mean Will would be worth two times Vigor", which in an equation would look like this: Will = 2 x Vigor

That struck me too, I think, on mouse's behalf, it was not what this person of undeclared gender meant to write,,, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Scott Jones
I was told by Byrne Viktmn that anytime you have a math formula, if there is no parenthesis marks used within a string equation, then the calculations occur in order of appearance within the equation.

I was taught differently in school. Granted it was public education, I was taught that in a string with no parenthesis, multipilcation/division was calculated before addition/subtraction.

thus X = A + B x C means you would multiply B by C then add A

Originally posted by Scott Jones
since I was told that placing parenthesis within an equation such as this,... X = (A + B) x C .... was superfluous,

the only extranious part of that is the "x", by that I mean, it should read " X = (A + B)C

I'm gonna see what I can find here in a minute on the web, but something else occoured to me while reading this thread:

Is there a distinction between a literary expression of the formula and a mathmatical expression of the formula? Further, would it work to state the following within the rules?;

"Stamina is calculated by adding strength to vigor and multiplying the result by two (or by three if the 'Toughness' advantage was purchased)"

My only immediate problem with doing it that way would be that, in one's haste to locate the information, it would get passed over more easily than an expression such as "Stamina = (Strength + Vigor)2" which I think would stand out more in a paragraph.

Damnit,, that also looks funky,, lemme see what I can dig up.

Ok, I remembered what we are discussing is called, and found some quick NFO:

Order of operations

When expressions have more than one operation, we have to follow rules for the order of operations:

1 First do all operations that lie inside parentheses.
2 Next, do any work with exponents or radicals.
3 Working from left to right, do all multiplication and division.
4 Finally, working from left to right, do all addition and subtraction.

Example:

X = 8 x 2squared + 7 x ( 4 - 1 ) . . . (Solve for X)
X = 8 x 2squared + 7 x 3
X = 8 x 4 + 7 x 3
X = 32 + 21
X = 53

When an expression contains more than one operation, you can get different answers depending on the order in which you solve the expression.

Example:

Without Parenthesis -------------------With Parenthesis
8 - 7 + 3 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - (7 + 3) =
1 + 3 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 10 =
4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -2

So to be Mathmatically correct ;

Stamina = 2 x (Strength + Vigor) or 3 x (Strength + Vigor) if 'Toughness' was purchased

Notice I moved the multiplyer to the left side of the parenthesis,, technically not necessary, but I remember one of my math teachers drilling that form into my skull as it was accepted as "good form"

Also notice I used the 'x' to notate multiplication, this is acceptable, though not necessary. I do believe, however that it looks better when you are using words instead of variables, than to omit it & scrunch the multiplier up next to the parenthesis.

Hear My Words!!! Zoli is correct... byrne viktim is WRONG! You should pay close attention Zoli since this is likely to be the only time I EVER say you are right about anything (even if you are right) Nice plug on the math rules, by the way. That's exactly how I learned it when I was in school. So that's how it MUST be... no matter what "proofs" to the contrary anybody else has.

Ahhh!!! Thank you all for bringing all this to my attention, and especially to ZClip for finding the actual mathematical procedure references for me to draw from!

By the way,..in Byrne Viktmn's defense,..we were hot and heavy into getting these playtest rules out in time for everybody,..so when we, ourselves, got to the point of discussing this, we didn't have time to officially look this up and confirm one way or the other, so we ended up going with what he thought was the correct and less potentially cluttered and confusing-looking way of displaying them. I still agree with that basic desire, which is why I think that I will go with the way ZClip indicated, being:

Stamina = 2 x (Strength + Vigor)

or

Stamina = 3 x (Strength + Vigor) if 'Toughness' was purchased....


Based on all this input, I shall now go back and change the various equations that utilize this logic...

Thanks all!

Wish me luck!

Scottie

HA!!! Birn Wiktum's defense... heh... he's so wrong I can't even spell his name correctly Vegitation Seriously though... good luck with finding and changing all the equations

Well...you guys must think I'm a complete moron and apparently I need to work on my communication skills. While I thank you for upholding my position on how a mathematical formula should be presented, it would seem that your understanding of what I was trying to tell you didn't quite materialize the way I would've hoped. I appologize profusely for giving you a false understanding of how these wacky formulas work. My bad.

It is my understanding that whatever happens within a given set of parentheticals happens first, with the convention that multiplication and division happen before addition and subtraction. So therefore, if a formula reads Stamina = Vigor + Will x 2, I would take it to mean that Will would be multiplied by 2 and then added to Vigor to creat the total for Stamina. Whereas, if a formula reads Stamina = (Vigor + Will) x 2, I would take that to mean I should add Vigor and Will together first and then multiply the sum to get my Stamina. Other than that, everything happens in order of appearance. I think the misunderstanding comes with the way I tried to relay that info to you. Again, my apologies...I'll try not to let it happen again.

Man...my failures just seem to keep mounting.

Worry not, dude! As far as I'm concerned, as long as it gets fixed in the end,..and any other such issues get aired out on this private forum before the thing goes public,..then we can ALL come out not looking like goobers (since I KNOW there'll be more errors of various kinds which are my, your, and ZClip's handiwork,..since,..well,..we're the ones who've been touching this monster over the last many years....right on its "no-no place"). Though it may seem a bit embarrasing sometimes, anytime I can recall a source for why I did things a certain way (whether I'm recalling it correctly or not) I'm gonna mention it so that they get involved as well to help clarify the situation. Those were some LONG days and some early mornings for us dude,..so I'm not surprised that stuff like this happens... No biggie!

It's HIGHLY possible that it was merely a miscommunication, as opposed to this being a "failure" at all on anyone's part, which wouldn't even have been a problem if I had been more sure of myself concerning algebra. Luckily,..we now have the chance of benefiting from the eyes and minds of others to help us make sure that not only are we all on the "same page", but that (because we now have a little more time to get definitive source information) we are using the correct mathematic conventions.

Based on all this great input,..I've already gone back into all the Animal Templates and fixed all those inconsistancies... There were actually a small percentage of those with Toughness that DID have the parenthesis,..and many of them that did not, which needed changing,..and that gave me the chance to go back in, put their descriptions in the new "fully justified" format,..and fix the numerous spelling errors that abounded within them.. (Damn Photoshop for having a somewhat buggy spellchecker that can't use out Word dictionaries)... I had to copy/paste each one into Word so that I could check them before replacing them. They're all fixed now,..so anyone looking at the Animal Templates in the playtest editions,..know that they have been "seen to",..no need for further spelling commentary concerning them,..unless you find an error outside the descriptions... YAY!!

I'm gonna now lock this thread so we can move on the the next fun topic...

Thanks to all who responded, and to 'mouse of doom' for the original posting which forced us to look at this a little closer this time.

Scottie

I opened this thread back up really quickly to make a final note in here to indicate the progress concerning this issue.

• I have gone back in and changed the Character Sheet art to account fot this error. This is reflected in the downloadable Character Sheet on this Forum.
  
• I have gone back into the Basic Compendium and fixed the equations in the rules pertaining to the Talent "Toughness".
  
• I have gone into the Character Creation rules pertaining to Stamina to make sure that the wording reflected the correct calculations.
  
• I have gone through the Animal Templates to make sure all Toughness equations are following the same paradigm.
  
• I have gone through the Combat section to insure that anything mentioning either Stamina OR Toughness are using the proper equation.
  
• I have gone through all of the Martial Styles one by one to insure that they all are consistant concerning their own various equations.
  

At this point, having gone through the Martial Styles, though I have found a few inconsistancies (which I have fixed), I MUST say that Byrne Viktmn is most likely correct in that my interpretation of what he said when he initially was explaining the equations to me (which caused me to alter the Stamina equation) was simply a matter of miscommunication, because pretty much all of the equations used for the martial styles to show damage use this format:
(Successes + Weapon) x ? or (Successes + Weapon) + ? or (Successes x ?) + Weapon or Successes + Weapon etc....
Even though it doesn't follow the EXACT paradigm detailed by ZClip (it places the multiplyer after the parenthesis in cases of multiplication), I feel that in these cases, for the martial styles, it presents a clearer picture of the flow of calculations pertaining to damage (parenthesis calculations performed first and displayed first), and is consistant within the martial style description, and is not incorrect according to the conventions of mathematics. I have therefore chosen to let them remain as written for the martial styles. My appologies to Byrne Viktmn for any embarrasment our miscommunication caused him throughout this thread. Please know that I will always list names pertaining to perceived errors in the documents, if for no other reason than to instigate quick clarification and resolution. This is NEVER meant to be an affront or an attempt at guilt hurling or blame placement, NOR is it an invitation for other forum members to rag on such a person (ya goobers! ;)). I want the few people who are willing to help me to WANT to continue to help me, but to also be very careful to help keep me from having to go over it again. Time is my nemesis!

Please let me know if you guys find ANY other equations issues concerning Stamina or any other such thing, for that matter (listed as its own individual thread in this Spelling and Grammar section) throughout the REST of the rules, and I'll take care of it immediately. Just make sure it follows the essential paradigm established according to ZClip's research so that we are all following the same conventions. Clarity and consistancy is the goal.

By the way,..'mouse of doom' never had a chance to respond to ANY of this,..and,..considering that he was the author of this post,..I'm gonna keep it open a bit longer to let him respond if he wishes...

Thanks all!

Scottie

Hah hah!! EXCELLENT! Thanks for the reply,..AND the explanation of the earlier phrase that confused me so.. It makes sense, now,..what you were saying.

And oops,..yes,..mouse'o'doom,..not mouseofdoom,..sorry...

Well,...hopefully the changes work to the satisfaction of all... Like I said before,..please let me know if you guys find other such errors...

I wanna make 'em RIGHT!

Scottie