Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6016704" data-attributes="member: 3192">So, bounded accuracy for me is kind of like saying &quot;Here's the scope of play and we want everyone to have a reasonable chance of success or failure within it no matter their advancement within that range.&quot;Now all of this is really about percentage odds, which are easier to understand on single rolls, but get more interesting (and so does the game) when lots and lots of dice are rolled. &quot;Reasonable&quot; odds in D&amp;D has differed, mainly within subsystems, but d20 now has it as 5% for pretty much everything. What I perceive D&amp;Dn as doing is setting the low bar at 50% and the high at 95% and then saying folks at that highest level will have about a 50% odds of winning against even the most difficult challenges.In terms of what is imagined during play it's also about trying for sense over nonsense. Your average high school wrestler isn't challenged by an ant. But wrestling the moon to pin it against planet earth? That's too much. One is above 95% chance of success, the other is below 5% based on designer experience (YMMV). That's scope of play and bounded accuracy in action IMO. The game can be changed to suit those who buy it, but it is still built according to certain preconceived notions. Having a sliding scope that drops playable characters due the odds becoming 0% is relatively easy to reinstate. Simply drop the top cap (or bottom or both) and increase your die roll modifiers beyond the size of the die. We're using d20 and keeping these at about +9-10, but they could be increased across 0 to 18 and still allow for failure and success in every case. The game will likely feel really pinched at the top level, but that would be part of the design. Removing the caps would remove the pinch, but also remove the possibility of having a cooperative game with different abilities and ability levels for different players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 6016704, member: 3192"] So, bounded accuracy for me is kind of like saying "Here's the scope of play and we want everyone to have a reasonable chance of success or failure within it no matter their advancement within that range." Now all of this is really about percentage odds, which are easier to understand on single rolls, but get more interesting (and so does the game) when lots and lots of dice are rolled. "Reasonable" odds in D&D has differed, mainly within subsystems, but d20 now has it as 5% for pretty much everything. What I perceive D&Dn as doing is setting the low bar at 50% and the high at 95% and then saying folks at that highest level will have about a 50% odds of winning against even the most difficult challenges. In terms of what is imagined during play it's also about trying for sense over nonsense. Your average high school wrestler isn't challenged by an ant. But wrestling the moon to pin it against planet earth? That's too much. One is above 95% chance of success, the other is below 5% based on designer experience (YMMV). That's scope of play and bounded accuracy in action IMO. The game can be changed to suit those who buy it, but it is still built according to certain preconceived notions. Having a sliding scope that drops playable characters due the odds becoming 0% is relatively easy to reinstate. Simply drop the top cap (or bottom or both) and increase your die roll modifiers beyond the size of the die. We're using d20 and keeping these at about +9-10, but they could be increased across 0 to 18 and still allow for failure and success in every case. The game will likely feel really pinched at the top level, but that would be part of the design. Removing the caps would remove the pinch, but also remove the possibility of having a cooperative game with different abilities and ability levels for different players. [/QUOTE]

Verification