Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7694520" data-attributes="member: 87792">This is nothing more than the fallacy of the excluded middle. "We want some randomness in task resolution therefore any and all randomness is automatically fine" - which makes about as much sense as "You like a little pepper on your food so I'm serving raw scotch bonnet chillies. What's the problem?" Some days and in some games I want to play the keystone cops. And in others I want to play competent professionals against overwhelming odds.And the shorter the game the more randomness is a nice rather than an overwhelming spice. There were a lot of reasons Gygax did not include critical hits or critical fumbles. On the other hand the Firefly RPG has a lot of fumbles built into the system - and is amazing fun for a two or three session game but I couldn't take a campaign of it.Fallacy of the excluded middle again. If we are playing a challenge based game should player skill be a factor at all? If what we are setting out to do is reward players for rolling well, why have character sheets at all? Why not just say "The higher you roll the better you do"?What we want is a game with some reward for rolling well and penalty for rolling badly. But we clearly don't want one where how you roll is the dominant factor in how well you do. This is why D&D as written by Gygax and Arneson had just the pass/fail metric. Because luck should matter but not be overwhelming.And because the naive "Nat 1 fumbles" means that the fighter fumbles more often than the wizard.I play D&D rather than Snakes and Ladders because I don't find snakes and ladders a fun game as there is no element of skill to it. What gives you @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=4937" target="_blank">Celebrim</a> the right to decide what is fun for everyone? And some days and with some groups I'm in the mood for Chess, which has precisely no luck. Others I'm in the mood for Cards Against Humanity which is approximately 90% luck (seriously, the blind draw wins ridiculously often). Why do you think that this is inherently wrong?</blockquote>

Verification