Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Prophet2b" data-source="post: 4285764" data-attributes="member: 36476">I know I don't post often on this forum and usually stick to the background - especially intensely mathematical threads like this.&nbsp; However...&nbsp; I have read over and over again that creating a game system is not just math - it's also an art.&nbsp; Is it possible that just because the math says one thing, that doesn't mean the system itself is inherently flawed?&nbsp; They've obviously tested the skill challenge system a lot - WotC talked about it multiple times before releasing 4e.&nbsp; They had playtesters.It is actually very, very easy to create a mathematically perfect system.&nbsp; You can alter DC's, account for certain variables, etc. and (mathematically) scale things exactly how you want them on paper.&nbsp; But that does not mean that that's how it always plays out.&nbsp; I would be incredibly surprised if WotC didn't make a &quot;perfect&quot; system at some point and decided to go with this instead.Basically my point is just this: a role playing system isn't just about math, it's also an art.&nbsp; The dice actually don't roll like the paper says they will.&nbsp; Actual success is not necessarily guaranteed, even when the numbers say 100%.The other night my group and I ran a practice 4e combat session.&nbsp; I (the DM) got two critical hits early on.&nbsp; I rolled consistently higher than 12 all night.&nbsp; I only missed the players a grand total of three times (I think that was it).&nbsp; On the other hand, they rolled multiple 1's, and had difficulty rolling above a 3-5 for some reason for more than 3/4 of the night.&nbsp; They almost died in a battle that should have been incredibly easy for them to overcome.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Horrid, horrid rolls.The situation has been reversed many times, too.My point: I don't really care what the math says on paper.&nbsp; I care about how things actually play out in game, and the math is absolutely, completely no guarantee about how things will actually play out in the game.&nbsp; That is an art, not a science.&nbsp; I'm going to stick with the skill system as is, and I would recommend others do the same.&nbsp; If, throughout the course of the game, we discover that it is horribly broken (one way or the other) - then maybe we'll try to do something about it.&nbsp; But I'm getting kind of tired of these threads talking about how 4e is broken when it hasn't even been out for a week, yet, and people haven't seen it in play for any period of time at all.Come on... can't we give WotC the benefit of the doubt until we see (in game, as the pieces are fitting together) otherwise?&nbsp; Innocent until proven guilty?That's what I plan on doing, anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Prophet2b, post: 4285764, member: 36476"] I know I don't post often on this forum and usually stick to the background - especially intensely mathematical threads like this. However... I have read over and over again that creating a game system is not just math - it's also an art. Is it possible that just because the math says one thing, that doesn't mean the system itself is inherently flawed? They've obviously tested the skill challenge system a lot - WotC talked about it multiple times before releasing 4e. They had playtesters. It is actually very, very easy to create a mathematically perfect system. You can alter DC's, account for certain variables, etc. and (mathematically) scale things [i]exactly[/i] how you want them on paper. But that does [i]not[/i] mean that that's how it always plays out. I would be incredibly surprised if WotC didn't make a "perfect" system at some point and decided to go with this instead. Basically my point is just this: a role playing system isn't just about math, it's also an art. The dice actually [i]don't[/i] roll like the paper says they will. Actual success is not necessarily guaranteed, even when the numbers say 100%. The other night my group and I ran a practice 4e combat session. I (the DM) got two critical hits early on. I rolled consistently higher than 12 all night. I only missed the players a grand total of three times (I think that was it). On the other hand, they rolled multiple 1's, and had difficulty rolling above a 3-5 for some reason for more than 3/4 of the night. They almost died in a battle that should have been [i]incredibly easy[/i] for them to overcome. Why? Horrid, horrid rolls. The situation has been reversed many times, too. My point: I don't really care what the math says on paper. I care about how things actually play out in game, and the math is absolutely, completely no guarantee about how things will actually play out in the game. That is an [i]art[/i], not a science. I'm going to stick with the skill system as is, and I would recommend others do the same. If, throughout the course of the game, we discover that it is horribly broken (one way or the other) - then maybe we'll try to do something about it. But I'm getting kind of tired of these threads talking about how 4e is broken when it hasn't even been out for a week, yet, and people haven't seen it in play for any period of time at all. Come on... can't we give WotC the benefit of the doubt until we see (in game, as the pieces are fitting together) otherwise? Innocent until proven guilty? That's what I plan on doing, anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification