J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

[billd91]

In the end, it all comes down to the probabilities and the effects you achieve. Is there really a need to have the probability curve of a 2d6 vs a probablity curve of a 1d20?

I know people who do feel it matters, particularly when doing things like adjudicating PC actions. They feel that a flat probability doesn't reflect reality enough because it's unlikely that, for any given attempt at a task, you're equally as likely to achieve your best work as your most mediocre. Thus, they prefer a bell-style curve like 3d6 in which you are decidedly more likely to middling work than achieve exceptional levels of success (or failure).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's nicely put!

I usually talk about this using the terms "wonk" (when a game uses different subsystems for various tasks or classes) and "elegance." (when the same system is used for everything). Obviously, I prefer a wonky system because it gives more character to different types of things.

I like the terms. Obviously, I prefer elegance.

I know people who do feel it matters, particularly when doing things like adjudicating PC actions. They feel that a flat probability doesn't reflect reality enough because it's unlikely that, for any given attempt at a task, you're equally as likely to achieve your best work as your most mediocre. Thus, they prefer a bell-style curve like 3d6 in which you are decidedly more likely to middling work than achieve exceptional levels of success (or failure).

Yes. But of course they create the issue of how modifiers stacking has a far stronger effect on the outcome, and the question arises if this is also what is desired?

The probability of a d20 rolling any particular result is 5% This is as flat as a pancake.

DPC

You can check out the distributions here.

Maybe I should have added a smiley or at least something to indicate that I am engaging in mathematical pedantry, proving my manlihood or at least nerdhood that I know more about math than you?

Nah, that would be no fun.

Thanks for the link. I should steal the code since my math is too rusty to come up witht he correct way to calculate dice probability curves on my own. Or rather how to create a formula or algorithm to have a computer do it. And I am too lazy, too.

 

[Mythmere1]

I like the terms. Obviously, I prefer elegance.

Sorry, I said "obviously" because I wrote a couple of retro-clones, so "obviously given that it's me," not "obviously" in the sense of "obviously better." I know a lot of players who prefer elegant rule sets, and they're particularly good when you've got a system where several different factors are assembled during character creation, or when you combine different skills into a single bonus. For D&D, I prefer wonk. In most sci-fi games, I prefer elegance. It depends on the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Maybe I should have added a smiley or at least something to indicate that I am engaging in mathematical pedantry, proving my manlihood or at least nerdhood that I know more about math than you?

Nah, that would be no fun.

Thanks for the link. I should steal the code since my math is too rusty to come up witht he correct way to calculate dice probability curves on my own. Or rather how to create a formula or algorithm to have a computer do it. And I am too lazy, too.

Whew!!! You were scaring me. I love that site and use it a lot when tinkering with game mechanics.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorry, I said "obviously" because I wrote a couple of retro-clones, so "obviously given that it's me," not "obviously" in the sense of "obviously better." I know a lot of players who prefer elegant rule sets, and they're particularly good when you've got a system where several different factors are assembled during character creation, or when you combine different skills into a single bonus. For D&D, I prefer wonk. In most sci-fi games, I prefer elegance. It depends on the game.

I certainly assumed you talked about personal preference, not absolute truths.

The absolute truth, of course, is that elegance is best.