Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ichabod" data-source="post: 9349379" data-attributes="member: 1257">Seeing as you have clearly explained what you mean by risk is a cost, I did look it up. I googled "risk is cost." I didn't get any science though, I just got a lot of business stuff, which is kind of what I was expecting. It talks about the cost of dealing with risk, such as working to mitigate it, paying for insurance to cover losses, administrating all of this. But this is just the cost of dealing with the bad rolls: the guys you took a chance on giving a loan who didn't turn out to be able to pay you back. The thing is, this isn't anything beyond the fact that when you take risks as a business, things don't always pan out. In TTRPG terms, it isn't anything beyond rolling bad hit points occasionally. In a game there are costs with that as well. You go down more often, you need more health potions, that sort of thing.Here's the thing about your crude example: it is just talking about the cost when the outcome is low. That cost is losing the scenario. You roll low, you lose; you don't roll low, you win. There is nothing else in your example.Why would I think they are equal? 1d6 gives me a 67% chance of winning, and 3.5 gives me a 100% chance of winning. Those are not equal. You made an artificial situation where they aren't equal, to try to show that they aren't equal in any situation. That does not follow logically.Furthermore, I take issue with low hit points being more of a disabler than having having high hit point is an enabler. You claim this is true in most campaigns, but what is your data for making that assertion? You don't have any. And it is certainly not true in any campaign I've played in. Five years now, I haven't seen a single character killed except by other characters. You go down, someone casts Healing Word or gives you a potion, and boom your back up again. Not that I would consider my campaign to be indicative of other campaigns. But that's the point, I don't have the data and you don't either. And without the data to back you up, you can't just throw away the math.Not beyond rolling bad. That 33% chance of certain doom in your artificial scenario is solely from rolling bad. There is nothing causing it beyond that.No, it's dismissive of your argument.All I have asked of games is addition, division, and doing a web search. If you don't think the average gamer is capable of that, you're the one being incredibly dismissive of gamers.I have argued for designers to provide reasonably weighted options in this very thread. We are just disagreeing on what is "reasonably weighted."If gamers cannot do risk calculation, then game design should remove all risk. And I don't see how expecting players to do that is somehow the same as not doing any game design at all.This part I find very interesting. You said the game was hiding the risks. I pointed out that nothing was being hidden. Now you are saying I'm fleecing people. ??? We don't play for money at my table, so I am unaware of how I am fleecing anyone. But thank you for moving the goal posts.I would also note that this a consistent refrain from you:This makes me think you want a game where risk isn't risky. The cost of risk you were talking about in your crude example was just the cost of bad rolls. You want to be compensated for that. You are compensated for that, by the good rolls. But that is not enough for you. You want to be compensated more. It seems you want the bad rolls not to be bad. That's not a game design I will get behind.Finally, what I see here is ad hominem attacks, hyperbole, and moving goal posts. I don't see this conversation going anywhere useful, so I am not going to participate in it any more.</blockquote>

Verification