> 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.
I'm would still disagree. If I have 5w, I would still want to roll five or less because it's a critical. In the low roll wins situation, If I failed to roll the 5 or less and my opponent did roll the five or less, he wins. Conceptually, it means that if he makes his roll, but I fail to critical, his mere success trumps my mastery.
The better example to illustrate the high roll wins superiority is with an equal number of masteries. The 19 v. 5 scenario illustrates this perfectly. If the 5 succeeds, the 19's skill means nothing; he must still roll less than 5 (and less than the opponent), or he's defeated.
I think, however, that the difference of opinion lies more with point of view. I'd rather see the higher skilled combatant take as much advantage of the high skill as possible and trounce the lower skilled combatant the vast majority of the time. It seems your sympathies lie with the underdog. That's probably a difference in taste, which is fine. I just don't prefer it.
Jimmie
Powered by hypermail