> Wow, you are generous. In actual life, 1w only beats 5 about 89% of
> the time in a simple contest. 1w2 beats 10 about 98% of the time, so
> that's not so bad.
Is it really that high? By my quick calculations, 1w beats 5 less than 80% of the time.
> abohlig wrote:
> >We originally thought the low roll wins was a misprint
> I'm sure the idea was to have a consistent rule to explain to people:
> you want to roll low. Unlike Pendragon, where you have to tell
> beginners: "You want to roll high numbers, but not a 20, that's bad."
Of course, this supposedly simple change, skews the results wildly. It goes far beyond a simple decision that high or low is good or bad. Yes, I'm obsessing, but it really bugs me that the rule is the way it is.
Powered by hypermail