The "Maneuver Paradigm" example would take a mean time of 10 rounds, but that's just the long tail of outliers driving up the mean. There is a 90% chance of the combat continuing after either character's attack. This gives the encounter a half-life of approx 6.579 attacks or 3.289 rounds for the median case. The encounter will only get to the 10th round 15% of the time. The "Attrition Paradigm", following the Law of Large Numbers, probably has its median case much closer to 10 rounds.
Where does the Law of Diminishing Returns fit in? Marginal, attritional, successes in sufficient quantity become indistinguishable from failure.
Lots to think about here, and I particularly enjoy the maneuver/attrition dichotomy, it's one of those things that "once you see it you can't forget it"!
Now I'm wondering how much significance there is to the fact that your examples of the former are all more "grounded" settings vs the fantastic/gonzo of the latter.
The "Maneuver Paradigm" example would take a mean time of 10 rounds, but that's just the long tail of outliers driving up the mean. There is a 90% chance of the combat continuing after either character's attack. This gives the encounter a half-life of approx 6.579 attacks or 3.289 rounds for the median case. The encounter will only get to the 10th round 15% of the time. The "Attrition Paradigm", following the Law of Large Numbers, probably has its median case much closer to 10 rounds.
Where does the Law of Diminishing Returns fit in? Marginal, attritional, successes in sufficient quantity become indistinguishable from failure.
Lots to think about here, and I particularly enjoy the maneuver/attrition dichotomy, it's one of those things that "once you see it you can't forget it"!
Now I'm wondering how much significance there is to the fact that your examples of the former are all more "grounded" settings vs the fantastic/gonzo of the latter.