Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5727424" data-attributes="member: 54877">Makes sense to me. This is one of the things I was wondering about with the effect of the math on the feel. I can know that, pace the earlier posts, that with a d20, I want most of the rolls to be withing the 40% to 80% success range, and most of those close to 65%. I know mathematically that this leads to results that our group likes. But absent scaling, that doesn't even allow the full +1 to +10 modifiers that feels more correct. &nbsp;And then I also know that a range of +1 to +8 doesn't tend to give us much happiness, at least not with stacking. +1 is too fiddly, +2 almost is, and if you get any bigger than that, you can't have more than 2 mods. It creates the impression in my mind that if I could state all the things that people want at our table, then do the math for each thing--the Venn diagram showing where hte math intersected would be awfully smal--perhaps even non-existantl. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" />&nbsp;There is a bit of the Legend and Lore stuff about tiered ranks of skills (e.g. &quot;expert&quot;) still buzzing around in the back of my mind, though not exactly as they presented it. Though I'm not sure that centers the feel of the system perfectly, either. It is definitely a way to avoid the fiddly bits. You've got the mods that you have. You need major stuff to shift &quot;ranks&quot;, and the only way to get it is to engage heavily with the fiction. Asssuming the system was set up that way, and I can't see any reason for having such a system unless it is set up that way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5727424, member: 54877"] Makes sense to me. This is one of the things I was wondering about with the effect of the math on the feel. I can know that, pace the earlier posts, that with a d20, I want most of the rolls to be withing the 40% to 80% success range, and most of those close to 65%. I know mathematically that this leads to results that our group likes. But absent scaling, that doesn't even allow the full +1 to +10 modifiers that feels more correct. And then I also know that a range of +1 to +8 doesn't tend to give us much happiness, at least not with stacking. +1 is too fiddly, +2 almost is, and if you get any bigger than that, you can't have more than 2 mods. It creates the impression in my mind that if I could state all the things that people want at our table, then do the math for each thing--the Venn diagram showing where hte math intersected would be awfully smal--perhaps even non-existantl. :heh: There is a bit of the Legend and Lore stuff about tiered ranks of skills (e.g. "expert") still buzzing around in the back of my mind, though not exactly as they presented it. Though I'm not sure that centers the feel of the system perfectly, either. It is definitely a way to avoid the fiddly bits. You've got the mods that you have. You need major stuff to shift "ranks", and the only way to get it is to engage heavily with the fiction. Asssuming the system was set up that way, and I can't see any reason for having such a system unless it is set up that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification