Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4300630" data-attributes="member: 5889">I'll be honest, I thought you were a designer when I created the post. Regardless, I attempted to simply counteract your points in a logical and thoughtful manner, so I hope I have not caused any enmity by doing so.People have mentioned the danger of using math to invalidate a system, and I agree with them that playtesting is always an important point. The reason is that when you sit in a room doing math, you make assumptions about the way players will use mechanics, and how they will understand your system. And as often seen at the gaming table, those assumptions are wrong.However, there is a limit to the usefulness of playtesting as well. In my opinion, once playtesting gives you an idea of how players will use a system, math must be used to tell you if a system is good or not. With math, I can run 50,000 skill challenges in the span of 10 seconds, more than any group will likely ever run. In playtesting you hit the problem with perception after only a few die rolls. One group runs several challenges, rolls well, and thinks the challenges work great. Another runs several, rolls badly, and thinks the system is crap. Only math can tell you whether it was bad dice or a bad system.That is the main reason I responded to your post. When people talk about a playtest they've run, I think its always important to hear how the people in that group ran the system. But 1 group saying the system works great for them means little, just as 1 group saying its crap means little.</blockquote>

Verification