Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6548696" data-attributes="member: 27160">Ensuring failure, no. It means about a 70% chance of at least one failure in four encounters, however. One "adventuring day" in three you get to not either die or run away. Sounds like a blast... but count me out.This has nothing whatsoever to do with weakening characters or reducing resources - it's just a consequence of the way stacking probabilities work.So, what percentage will be "death"? One in three? One in four? That would make your 25% failure case a world where the average life expectancy of an adventurer is ~2-4 days (8-11 encounters), depending whether it's 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 failures = death. By "average life expectancy" I mean that each character has around a 50% chance to last this long.Well, pretty obviously, campaigns where characters have an average life expectancy of under a week do not 'last', in the sense that it's a bit marginal to call them "campaigns" when the list of PCs is that unstable.As for "never losing", this is incorrect, to put it politely. In a game (story arc, mission, adventure series, whatever you wish to call it) of 100 encounters, a 99% chance of success gives a ~37% chance of at least one failure. 99% is an exaggeratedly high figure to use, but even then to say it gives "no chance of failure" just flies in the face of probability theory.Then here's some advice:1) Make your agenda at least slightly less transparent. Your biased wording and selection of "success chance" points makes the view you want to push abundantly clear and your motives thus suspect.2) Be clear about what you actually mean by your question. Poorly defined terms not only invalidate the answers you get (because nobody knows quite what question they are answering) but also make it look very weaselly when you start squirming about what the terms mean when challenged. It's far better to be clear about what you mean from the get-go.3) Think in advance about what the options you are offering actually mean, and why they might be attractive. This links into (1), above, in the sense that you can only describe options neutrally if you first have some idea as to why such an option might be attractive to voters. If there's genuinely no way it could be attractive, as far as you can see, don't offer it as an option. The comments might show you that some folk do, indeed, like options outside your range - but the lack of a poll button means they might tell you why they do so (and thus educate you).</blockquote>

Verification