Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Should time spent on system mechanics be based in interest or importance/risk?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7328647" data-attributes="member: 23935"><p>The question then becomes how can mechanical weight be varied to conform to the table interest? D&D has already adopted a few streamlining efforts in this direction with average hp and average damage output to help speed things along when the DM wants. </p><p></p><p> I've seen games that offer two or more resolution systems for similar tasks, one for a heavy detailed resolution and others for lightweight situations. The biggest problem with them is usually making the result of the lightweight system appropriate and plausible in the more detailed system ie. given the same starting parameters, both systems should present similar expected results at similar cost. Typically, the lightweight system produces results that overly generous (incenting people to use it exclusively) or overly punishing (incenting the use of the detailed system exclusively save for those cases where the table simply doesn't care at all or expects a serious loss anyway).</p><p></p><p>For D&D, this can be seen in a variety of mass combat systems compared to fighting the battles individually, for example. I recall one 3.5 game that tried to adopt a simple system to handle "trash mob" fights that used per-round average damage. I pointed out the danger with such fights came not from the average or expected values, but from the outliers: it may be expected damage won't drop the party for 5 rounds, but the threat can take the party down in a single round if all the random factors line up. With multiple fights per day, the chance the party would wipe using the simple system was zero. The chance using the normal combat system was significantly higher.</p><p></p><p>It is entirely possible to build multiple systems to model the same endeavour; it would be relatively easy to adapt 4e's skill challenges to replace simple combats, for example. The difficulty is presenting similar risk and outcome without the result feeling particularly capricious.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 7328647, member: 23935"] The question then becomes how can mechanical weight be varied to conform to the table interest? D&D has already adopted a few streamlining efforts in this direction with average hp and average damage output to help speed things along when the DM wants. I've seen games that offer two or more resolution systems for similar tasks, one for a heavy detailed resolution and others for lightweight situations. The biggest problem with them is usually making the result of the lightweight system appropriate and plausible in the more detailed system ie. given the same starting parameters, both systems should present similar expected results at similar cost. Typically, the lightweight system produces results that overly generous (incenting people to use it exclusively) or overly punishing (incenting the use of the detailed system exclusively save for those cases where the table simply doesn't care at all or expects a serious loss anyway). For D&D, this can be seen in a variety of mass combat systems compared to fighting the battles individually, for example. I recall one 3.5 game that tried to adopt a simple system to handle "trash mob" fights that used per-round average damage. I pointed out the danger with such fights came not from the average or expected values, but from the outliers: it may be expected damage won't drop the party for 5 rounds, but the threat can take the party down in a single round if all the random factors line up. With multiple fights per day, the chance the party would wipe using the simple system was zero. The chance using the normal combat system was significantly higher. It is entirely possible to build multiple systems to model the same endeavour; it would be relatively easy to adapt 4e's skill challenges to replace simple combats, for example. The difficulty is presenting similar risk and outcome without the result feeling particularly capricious. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Should time spent on system mechanics be based in interest or importance/risk?
Top