Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2747844" data-attributes="member: 18280">No.&nbsp; Go back and re-read my rule.&nbsp; It clearly says &quot;A lethal crit roll with...blah, blah, blah&quot;.&nbsp; The word lethal means that it kills.While I agree with you that &quot;there is no such thing as a perfect system&quot; and that no system will always produce results that are &quot;preferable&quot; or even &quot;most enjoyable&quot;, I disagree with your assertation that there is no such thing as a system that always produces &quot;acceptable&quot;&nbsp; results.&nbsp; Moreover, I believe that choosing to throw out the results you do not like as &quot;unacceptable&quot; while keeping the results you like as &quot;acceptable&quot; devalues the system entirely.&nbsp; In other words, when working with a &quot;B&quot; gaming engine, you can fine-tune it to your needs so that it produces &quot;A&quot; results consistently with the occasional bad event (&quot;Rolled a 1!&quot;) tossed in, or you can ignore the system and simply choose the results you want.&nbsp; Or you can chug along with a &quot;B&quot; system.Or, as I said before, &quot;The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact&quot; is a valid house rule.&nbsp; However, I doubt that very many people are that upfront about it with their players, or would accept the corollary &quot;The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact&quot; house rule.&nbsp; Yet, if the purpose is to &quot;handle those bits ad hoc&quot; why not share the fun?When I suggested lowering all DCs by 1, that wasn't intended as a house rule.&nbsp; That was intended as adventure design.&nbsp; What I hoped to point out was that fudging a roll that is failed by 1 has nothing to do with the roll having actually failed by 1, which would be easy to deal with.&nbsp; That the roll &quot;only failed by 1&quot; is, in fact, a justification for fudging rather than the reason for fudging itself.The reason for fudging is, and can only be:&nbsp; &quot;I cannot accept the results of that die roll.&quot;That is a bit difficult to house rule away, yes.&nbsp; It is also not a system design fault.&nbsp; Ergo, my &quot;0-for-2&quot; is the result of (1) your failure to notice the word &quot;lethal&quot; in the first house rule, and (2) the Socratic method.&nbsp; Everything else about &quot;if i just add more and more house rules, i will eventually arrive at a perfect system which will never misfire&quot; is a straw man to avoid the actual issues.&nbsp; One does not need to believe in a perfect system to improve upon an existing system.&nbsp; Nor does one need to believe in a perfect system to know that &quot;I cannot accept the results of that die roll&quot; is user error.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2747844, member: 18280"] No. Go back and re-read my rule. It clearly says "A lethal crit roll with...blah, blah, blah". The word lethal means that it kills. While I agree with you that "there is no such thing as a perfect system" and that no system will always produce results that are "preferable" or even "most enjoyable", I disagree with your assertation that there is no such thing as a system that always produces "acceptable" results. Moreover, I believe that choosing to throw out the results you do not like as "unacceptable" while keeping the results you like as "acceptable" devalues the system entirely. In other words, when working with a "B" gaming engine, you can fine-tune it to your needs so that it produces "A" results consistently with the occasional bad event ("Rolled a 1!") tossed in, or you can ignore the system and simply choose the results you want. Or you can chug along with a "B" system. Or, as I said before, "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" is a valid house rule. However, I doubt that very many people are that upfront about it with their players, or would accept the corollary "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" house rule. Yet, if the purpose is to "handle those bits ad hoc" why not share the fun? When I suggested lowering all DCs by 1, that wasn't intended as a house rule. That was intended as adventure design. What I hoped to point out was that fudging a roll that is failed by 1 has nothing to do with the roll having actually failed by 1, which [I]would[/I] be easy to deal with. That the roll "only failed by 1" is, in fact, a justification for fudging rather than the reason for fudging itself. The reason for fudging is, and can only be: "I cannot accept the results of that die roll." That is a bit difficult to house rule away, yes. It is also not a system design fault. Ergo, my "0-for-2" is the result of (1) your failure to notice the word "lethal" in the first house rule, and (2) the Socratic method. Everything else about "if i just add more and more house rules, i will eventually arrive at a perfect system which will never misfire" is a straw man to avoid the actual issues. One does not need to believe in a perfect system to improve upon an existing system. Nor does one need to believe in a perfect system to know that "I cannot accept the results of that die roll" is user error. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification