Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave Turner" data-source="post: 4283913" data-attributes="member: 12329">But that's hardly intuitive from the RAW, is it?&nbsp; Without the benefit of the math that was crunched in the other thread, I don't think that this is a natural conclusion to draw.&nbsp; The hidden trap in the RAW is that a DM who assigns skill challenges based on how long it will take to perform a task isn't making a choice based on how hard the task should be.&nbsp; Ideally, I think that the DMG should help DMs choose tasks that are properly calibrated according to the likelihood of success.&nbsp; The RAW gives no indication that a Complexity 3 challenge is actually easier than a Complexity 1 challenge.&nbsp; So our poor newbie DMs (and many math-challenged veteran DMs) are trying to design challenges that won't frustrate their party and being mislead by the RAW.This is hardly an improvement in your approach to this topic.&nbsp; If you had bothered to read the math-heavy thread, you'd see that the mathematicians there took pains to carefully explain their reasoning.&nbsp; It seems that many math-challenged readers (like myself) were able to follow their reasoning without problem.Your alleged explanation is a pale, pale shadow of theirs.&nbsp; You may very well be right, but you're killing your message.&nbsp; Why bother with trying to defend yourself (&quot;No, I am not...&quot;) if you aren't really committed to it.&nbsp; There have been numerous, skeptical responses to your assertions in this thread.&nbsp; If you care about your criticism, you'll need to give a proper response which lays out your ideas in a way that non-mathematical folks can understand.A good start would be to reference the statements by mathematicians in the other thread by quotation and then showing why the Gambler's Fallacy undermines them.&nbsp; I am, of course, being charitable by suggesting that you've already read the thread in its entirety.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave Turner, post: 4283913, member: 12329"] But that's hardly intuitive from the RAW, is it? Without the benefit of the math that was crunched in the other thread, I don't think that this is a natural conclusion to draw. The hidden trap in the RAW is that a DM who assigns skill challenges based on how long it will take to perform a task isn't making a choice based on how hard the task should be. Ideally, I think that the DMG should help DMs choose tasks that are properly calibrated according to the likelihood of success. The RAW gives no indication that a Complexity 3 challenge is actually easier than a Complexity 1 challenge. So our poor newbie DMs (and many math-challenged veteran DMs) are trying to design challenges that won't frustrate their party and being mislead by the RAW. This is hardly an improvement in your approach to this topic. If you had bothered to read the math-heavy thread, you'd see that the mathematicians there took pains to carefully explain their reasoning. It seems that many math-challenged readers (like myself) were able to follow their reasoning without problem. Your alleged explanation is a pale, pale shadow of theirs. You may very well be right, but you're killing your message. Why bother with trying to defend yourself ("No, I am not...") if you aren't really committed to it. There have been numerous, skeptical responses to your assertions in this thread. If you care about your criticism, you'll need to give a proper response which lays out your ideas in a way that non-mathematical folks can understand. A good start would be to reference the statements by mathematicians in the other thread by quotation and then showing why the Gambler's Fallacy undermines them. I am, of course, being charitable by suggesting that you've already read the thread in its entirety. [/QUOTE]

Verification