Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 8795248" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Scrabble is an excellent, fun game, but when all that you draw is vowels, the whole game will be an uphill battle.Which is my way of saying: more randomness doesn't necessarily make for better combat.&nbsp; If a player starts to realize he's going to take x damage each round if he keeps up his current tactics - he might change them around a bit.I'm down with the bell curve too, but it isn't always implemented well, and has the potential side effect of slowing down what should be a fast-paced scene.&nbsp; And yes, the d2 suggests binary outcomes which 1) are common in certain mass-market RPGs, and 2) are not immune to GM interpretation.&nbsp;Players can keep being clever and enjoy their metagaming if the GM has only a d2.&nbsp; I didn't propose that players also be limited to a d2...But what about those target numbers that PCs would be manipulating in the hopes of defeating the GM's d2?&nbsp; On the one hand, it leaves players the potential to shift their outcomes twice: from auto-fail to d2, or from d2 to auto-success.&nbsp; So there is some room for cleverness.More to my curiosity though: how many d2 rolls does a PC face before it's statistically clear that her odds are 50% instead of 65%?&nbsp; A PC can strive to eke out another 5 or 10% of favor from the rules, but is that even measurable over the course of a typical combat?&nbsp; Sure, if you're wargaming, and all you do is roll dice for hours, 5% might be a valuable difference.&nbsp; In a typical game, say D&amp;D 5e, and typical battle, I'm not convinced that the brainpower overhead spent on getting 5, 10, 15% better odds is worth it.&nbsp; What could make a bigger and more immersive difference is what actions the PC takes, not what she rolls.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 8795248, member: 6685730"] Scrabble is an excellent, fun game, but when all that you draw is vowels, the whole game will be an uphill battle. Which is my way of saying: more randomness doesn't necessarily make for better combat. If a player starts to realize he's going to take x damage each round if he keeps up his current tactics - he might change them around a bit. I'm down with the bell curve too, but it isn't always implemented well, and has the [I]potential[/I] side effect of slowing down what should be a fast-paced scene. And yes, the d2 suggests binary outcomes which 1) are common in certain mass-market RPGs, and 2) are not immune to GM interpretation. Players can keep being clever and enjoy their metagaming if the GM has only a d2. I didn't propose that players also be limited to a d2... But what about those target numbers that PCs would be manipulating in the hopes of defeating the GM's d2? On the one hand, it leaves players the potential to shift their outcomes twice: from auto-fail to d2, or from d2 to auto-success. So there is [I]some[/I] room for cleverness. More to my curiosity though: how many d2 rolls does a PC face before it's statistically clear that her odds are 50% instead of 65%? A PC can strive to eke out another 5 or 10% of favor from the rules, but is that even measurable over the course of a typical combat? Sure, if you're wargaming, and all you do is roll dice for hours, 5% might be a valuable difference. In a typical game, say D&D 5e, and typical battle, I'm not convinced that the brainpower overhead spent on getting 5, 10, 15% better odds is worth it. What could make a bigger and more immersive difference is [B]what actions the PC takes[/B], not what she rolls. [/QUOTE]

Verification