In message <46a2215d$0$20563$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
"gleichman" <fox1_217.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> "Peter Knutsen" <peter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:46a21168$0$21932$157c6196@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
gun jam rate stuff - it seems that anything approximating to
'realistic' is likely to be unacceptably complex for use in an RPG.>
> > If you have any specific criticism of the roll mechanic, I'd like to
hear
> > it.
>
> I intensely dislike variable dice resolution systems be they simple X
number
> of dice per X skill levels (4.0 Shadowrun) or different dice per skill
level
> (Savage Worlds).
>
> Whatever their virtues in managing probabilities (and I don't consider
them
> significant), their impact on the player (and even GM) is nearly
uniformly
> negative. They hide the real chance of success and the impact of
individual
> modifiers behind highly unintuitive and in some cases exceedingly
complex
> math. If the system works correctly (which they often don't, and I've
> learned to check this myself as designers are often very wrong about the
> outcome of their own work), the best in-play feel you normally get is a
> fuzzy 'more is better'- and that IME is an highly fustrating way to
play. A
> reaction that has been uniform in anyone who fits in with my own desired
> gaming style.
Now here I'm with Peter. I too like variable-numbers-of-dice mechanics. I
like competent characters to be consistently competent. 'Consistently
competent' is a bit of a nebulous phrase, but among other things it's
going
to include fumble chances for routine tasks on the order of 1/1000 or
less,
which gibe reasonably well with real-world failure/fumble chances for
routine tasks. To generate a 1/1000 chance using dice, you need at least
3D10 or 4D6. So you can do it with a D1000. But if you do it with a D1000,
you have a skill roll range spanning the 1000 points from 0001-1000, which
is overkill in my view. 4D6 by comparison, generates a 1/1000 fluke at
either end of the probability curve, but only spans the 21 points from
4-24,
which means a one point difference between two skill rolls is large enough
to be a significant difference. Using multiple dice may have downsides in
computational complexity, but I find their variance characteristics, and
the
small points span covering a wide probability range to be very attractive.
And I've got computer programs that can calculate the odds for me, so I
for
one can check that my probabilities are behaving the way I want them to
even
if I use wierd dice. Although frankly multiple D6s is quite complex
enough,
and even then it's really not all /that/ complicated.
As an aside, I do reckon most game designers try to use different die
mechanics just to differentiate their games from everyone else's. And the
majority of them do cock up the probabilities. But the different die
mechanics of different games do undeniably affect the tone of those games.
I
/like/ the tone engendered by the Star Wars D6 system. I also like Feng
Shui's radically different die mechanic. EarthDawn wouldn't be EarthDawn
to
me without its frankly rather screwy resolution system. Same for DC Heroes
and Golden Heroes. The RPG universe would be a far poorer place if
everything used the same dice mechanic, even if it was provably the
Perfect
Dice Mechanic for All Possible RPGs. I say keep the oddball dice
mechanics,
warts and all.
> It's reached the point where I consider the designer to be flatly either
> hiding the fact that his game sucks behind complex mechanics, or he's
> chasing an illusionary target that's meaningful only to him.
>
>
> > I don't see much of a problem. The BL points of all incidents are
> > player-knowable, so if a player is concerned, he can keep track of the
> > GM's BL point expenditure. If he notices something amiss, such as the
GM
> > not spending his full quota on one particular PC, the track-keeping
player
> > can talk to the GM about it, and if the problem then persists the
player
> > can confront the GM with an accusation of cheating.
>
> I'm sorry, but all this (including the previous unquoted parts) doesn't
> really alter my reaction. The mechanic's design impacts me as "GM gets
to
> screw the players" at whim, limited only by minor resource management.
It's
> not something I'd accept.
>
> That may be in part due to my own gaming style. There the ability of
anyone
> to alter a single event could alter the final outocome of the entire
battle.
> There instead of 'bad luck' being favor, it can be decisive. The GM
could in
> fact decide the make the players lose, and that is something I build my
> games not to do.
I am less unhappy about the bad luck points given that I now know their
use
is more precisely quantified than I had originally thought. Doesn't mean I
like them, merely that I dislike them marginally less. One question I ask
myself is, would I use them for NPCs? Answer is no, because it's at best a
waste of time (if you use them for something harmless), at worst a rather
blatant fudge in the PCs favour, if they are used for something critical.
But if you don't use the bad luck mechanic for NPCs, you either have to
use
some other mechanism to represent it (which would probably be less precise
and could still vary from 'harmless' to 'critical' in a potentially
unpredictable manner), or you are treating NPCs differently from PCs,
because NPCs never get random bad luck like the PCs do. That will really
bug
some types of player, and while I personally don't mind PCs and NPCs being
treated /differently/, different treatment is only acceptable if it's as
far
as possible equally /fair/ to both sides. The mechanic as written is still
a
game-breaker for me. I also think it's ridiculously complicated for what
it
is attempting to achieve. You dole out bad luck points, then have to keep
track of how many you've spent on each character, try to spend them
fairly,
replenish them according to the phases of the moon, blah blah.
Why not just chuck the whole system and have a Bad Luck Dice that is
rolled
by the GM, and then the next character to roll the same as the Bad Luck
Dice
Total suffers a piece of bad luck? You can tweak the probabilities as
desired. For example, if you wanted 10% of die rolls to exhibit bad luck,
roll a D10; and the next die roll total whose last digit matches whatever
was rolled on the D10 gets it. If you have a character with the Unlucky
Trait, roll two Bad Luck Dice, and he gets it whenever he matches either
die
roll. This suggestion or something like it saves a boatload of tedious
bookkeeping and is inherently fair, because the trigger for the bad luck
is
two random numbers happening to match. That should hit all players and
NPCs
roughly equally, and at a frequency rate of your choosing. Once every 50
rolls, say. There are even fair ways to trigger a bad luck event when
characters take actions that don't require skill rolls. And you could say,
set a timer, and after the bad luck has been used up, the next bad luck
roll
is made after a secretly determined amount of time, all ready to hit the
next sucker.
--
Simon Smith
When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my
web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org
|
