Re: GM-controlled Bad Luck points

"Simon Smith" <simon_smith_news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:401024064f.zen44412@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

This is a good example of what I meant by "chasing an illusionary target 
that's meaningful only to him".

Many games designs (AoH being one example) do not invoke fumble rules for 
routine tasks, but rather only for stressed or combat conditions. Even
games 
where that isn't directly stated are often ran in that style- people don't

roll skill rolls for walking up stairs, taking a bath, or driving to work 
(although all those are causes of death in the real world) because GMs 
realize that's not the point of the game design. If one was interested in 
such things, I think they would be better served by making a roll per unit

of time rather than per each event.

Under those stress or combat conditions, a .1% is vastly understated IMO. 
Will Bill Hickok, certainly one of the best Wild West gunmen and perhaps
the 
best- likely never fired a 1000 rounds in anger, but he did shoot and kill

his deputy due to what in a rpg would be a fumble.

Further, one is not forced to unintuitive dice mechanics to achieve sub-1%

fumble resolution. In AoH, a '00' roll indicates the character has 
encountered a fumble condition against which he's an allowed a saving
throw 
to avoid. If that is failed, the fumble chart proper is then called into 
play and the largest bite therein is off balance results with broken
weapons 
or unintended injuries being uncommon. The finally result is likely more 
forgiving than reality as at the highest levels it drops well below your
.1% 
value (it is a Heroic adventure game after all). No does it break game
flow 
as hitting that 1% fumble test in any single battle is rare for any given 
character- and players enjoy the 'fumble parry' more than they would a 
straight up 'you're screwed' result of a single combat roll.

Lastly a great deal depends upon what one considers a fumble. Some systems

make them worse possible events (exploding weapons, chopping heads off 
friends, whacking one's foot off), while others do a smoother curve of
error 
saving those types of result for a small percentage of the fumble
outcomes.

So I find no merit in your stand here. Nothing in game design requires the

use of such mechanics.

> 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.

The RPG universe is already a very poor place, with few if any games
really 
playable over an extended period. If one wishes to treat them like candy
in 
passing, i.e. short passing campaigns then they do some interesting 
features. I have a fondness for Deadlands for example although it's 
mechanics are frankly horrid when judged rationally.