Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8792013" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Is that all this is? If anyone can confirm, I just saved 120 posts of reading. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-P" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :-P"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":-P" />I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that gamers (as a trend) like to faff about with numbers, and sometimes the distinction isn't overly meaningful, but people still like to explore the ins and outs of them all. If you really want to meaningfully impact party success or failure, modifying what success entails* almost always will have a larger contribution than moving the likelihood of success by a minor amount. *if categorical. Obviously in something like to-hit and damage whether changing the to-hit or the damage dealt has a higher contribution comes down to simple math.One of my main GMs, when designing homebrew, loves to hand out +/- 1-3 %s for higher quality equipment, differing societal status in a social encounter, and so on, and I keep saying, &quot;If even once during the game we convince you that we don't need to roll a check in a given situation, or you decide that a given challenge will require two checks instead of one, we've already wiped away any impact this will have.&quot; Guess what, he doesn't care? And he's probably right, psychologically -- Player 2 will still be excited about getting the +2% dagger and Player 3 will change their behavior to avoid the -1% to their roll (that puts their chance of success at the same place as it was last session before they upped their skill).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8792013, member: 6799660"] Is that all this is? If anyone can confirm, I just saved 120 posts of reading. :-P I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that gamers (as a trend) like to faff about with numbers, and sometimes the distinction isn't overly meaningful, but people still like to explore the ins and outs of them all. If you really want to meaningfully impact party success or failure, modifying [I]what success entails*[/I] almost always will have a larger contribution than moving the likelihood of success by a minor amount. [SIZE=1]*if categorical. Obviously in something like to-hit and damage whether changing the to-hit or the damage dealt has a higher contribution comes down to simple math.[/SIZE] One of my main GMs, when designing homebrew, loves to hand out +/- 1-3 %s for higher quality equipment, differing societal status in a social encounter, and so on, and I keep saying, "If even once during the game we convince you that we don't need to roll a check in a given situation, or you decide that a given challenge will require two checks instead of one, we've already wiped away any impact this will have." Guess what, he doesn't care? And he's probably right, psychologically -- Player 2 will still be excited about getting the +2% dagger and Player 3 will change their behavior to avoid the -1% to their roll (that puts their chance of success at the same place as it was last session before they upped their skill). [/QUOTE]

Verification