Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9349047" data-attributes="member: 29398">While I get what you're saying with this analysis, I just gotta ask: what if that goblin is going to do 4 points damage instead of 2?'Cause now all those who took the average are dead*, along with those who didn't roll 5 or 6 on the die.&nbsp; But those who took the risk and then rolled 5 or 6 are away to the races.* - and if everyone did, that's the fastest TPK ever. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The game designer's solution should be to point out in no uncertain terms that at its core D&amp;D is a game based largely on luck, and due to that not everything is going to come up roses.If both options are available, I kind of agree.My tack, though, would be to remove the no-risk option entirely.Isn't the potential reward offered by the risk in itself enough compensation?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9349047, member: 29398"] While I get what you're saying with this analysis, I just gotta ask: what if that goblin is going to do 4 points damage instead of 2? 'Cause now all those who took the average are dead*, along with those who didn't roll 5 or 6 on the die. But those who took the risk and then rolled 5 or 6 are away to the races. * - and if everyone did, that's the fastest TPK ever. :) The game designer's solution should be to point out in no uncertain terms that at its core D&D is a game based largely on luck, and due to that not everything is going to come up roses. If both options are available, I kind of agree. My tack, though, would be to remove the no-risk option entirely. Isn't the potential reward offered by the risk in itself enough compensation? [/QUOTE]

Verification