Re: Randomity and low rolls

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 23:55:24 +0100


On Wed, 31 May 2000 15:27:53 z (MST), Jimmie Pursell <pursell_at_...> wrote:

>> This isn't fair though, as if you had rolled high WITHOUT a Mastery
>> bump, you'd have failed. So you would be getting the bump AND the
>> benefit of high roll. I can see the 'greatest margin of success'
>> change working, but not 'highest roll'.
>>
>
>I'm not quite sure why this isn't "fair." Perhaps it's just a differing conception of what the results should be, but it seems that a fighter with 5w (it is a MASTERY after all) should be able to slam a fighter with a 5 at least 90% of the time and if the fighter with the 5 has a 4.75% chance of actually winning an exchange (and another 4.75% chance of tieing), I'd call that about right.

Well, you're saying you can fail to roll your target number, bump with your Mastery, but claim the 'failed' roll as a winner anyway. OK, I agree, you still rolled under the 25 (your example), but the game mechanic is that you have to roll under the 5. You are 'winning' by deliberately 'losing', preferring to roll high and relying on bumps. So the more you 'fail' by, the more chance of winning? Remembering, of course, we're only arguing about MARGINAL victories here, you've already taken full advantage of the much larger chance you have of succeeding at all. Basically, you're applying the same rule twice to Masteried rolls. Low roll makes more sense, maybe margin of success more still.

Wulf

Powered by hypermail