Re: GM-controlled Bad Luck points

In message <46a4aee7$0$4695$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          "gleichman" <fox1_217.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 
> "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) <snip>


Here's an attempt to articulate why ultra-low (but non-zero) failure and
fumble probabilities are sought by some game designers (incl. me and
Peter,
it appears):


To many strict simulationists, the view given by gleichman, while
pragmatic,
is bothersome. When considering a game world, I like to assume that the
game
rules apply universally. That is to say, even off-camera, the plebs are
driving to work, driving home, crossing roads and so on and - at least
theoretically - dice are being rolled by some nebulous GM in the sky to
determine what happens. So if the rules as written give a 1% chance of
each
NPC being run over every time they cross the road, that spoils the game
for
me. I stop trusting the rules because I know they generate ludicrous
results
for routine tasks that they ought to handle properly. (Even though those
routine tasks are being done by NPCs off-camera, and do not impinge on the
game.) And if I don't even trust the rules for routine tasks, I'm strongly
disinclined to trust them for anything more demanding, such as the stuff
PCs
usually get up to. Inability to sensibly handle routine operations breaks
SoD. So, given any system that /has/ an automatic failure or fumble
mechanic, the dice system, whatever it is, must be able to generate sub-1%
probabilities, or it won't be able to handle road-crossing and other such
trivia in a sane way, and I for one am not going to be happy running in
that
system.

Such a target may only be meaningful to a small majority of us, but for
those of us who do worry about the integrity of the rules systems we use,
it is a dispro****tionately big deal.

Having a rule that fumbles only apply in stressful situations is one
possible fix, of course, and it's certainly one I use in some systems. But
there are other legitimate ways to achieve the same end. And certainly, if
a
game system /can/ handle tiny failure chances elegantly, I see no reason
to
prevent it from doing so. I also feel that trying to design a system that
can do so is a worthwhile goal.

-- 
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my
web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org