Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7599275" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm not sure what you mean by a flattening effect, but the way ad/disad works is that if you already have a decent chance of success, it makes that chance much better (advantage) or if you already had a small chance, it makes that chance even less likely (disadvantage).&nbsp; The converse might tend to &quot;flatten&quot; as a good chance of success is moved to a moderate chance with disadvantage and vice versa, but the prior cases are the more common (especially as it's often a player initiated resource or a team initiated one).&nbsp; In other words, it usually makes the likely outcome even more likely, which cuts against a resolution system that really needs reasonable chances of success or failure to do it's thing (the snowball).I think this also touches on another corollary to your posts, that task -&gt; conflict resolution, when well coupled, doesn't imply that a successful task resolution means a successful conflict resolution.&nbsp; Instead, a successful task should always be coupled to an advancement towards a successful conflict resolution, and vice versa, but not exactly one for one.&nbsp; The Baker quote and your example don't explicitly make this point, although it is lurking in the shadows, so to speak, especially in your play example.&nbsp; I wanted to bring it out more clearly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7599275, member: 16814"] I'm not sure what you mean by a flattening effect, but the way ad/disad works is that if you already have a decent chance of success, it makes that chance much better (advantage) or if you already had a small chance, it makes that chance even less likely (disadvantage). The converse might tend to "flatten" as a good chance of success is moved to a moderate chance with disadvantage and vice versa, but the prior cases are the more common (especially as it's often a player initiated resource or a team initiated one). In other words, it usually makes the likely outcome even more likely, which cuts against a resolution system that really needs reasonable chances of success or failure to do it's thing (the snowball). I think this also touches on another corollary to your posts, that task -> conflict resolution, when well coupled, doesn't imply that a successful task resolution means a successful conflict resolution. Instead, a successful task should always be coupled to an advancement towards a successful conflict resolution, and vice versa, but not exactly one for one. The Baker quote and your example don't explicitly make this point, although it is lurking in the shadows, so to speak, especially in your play example. I wanted to bring it out more clearly. [/QUOTE]

Verification