I'm not being cryptic, I'm being lazy. As I've said, I've done this on more than one occasion before. And I'm not sure that I really care enough to do it again. Or... But, people are saying things like "It doesn't discriminate enough between abilities." Well consider the range. A character could have a 6 in an ability, and another could have a 10M3. That's 6 to 70, and there's still a chance of success for the guy rolling default (0.25%). Now, let's say we were using a straight percentages system like BRP... not that BRP has an opposed system exactly, but imagine something like that... it's hard to get a representation of mastery in this case where the mechanics don't get wonky that gives the same sort of only very slight chance of success. And if you do, what about the case where the three mastery guy is going up against six? How do you represent that on such a scale? You don't, basically. The HQ system, first of all, allows for a really broad range of ability levels to be used against each other, and have a very interesting curve of success. But, OK, I've only talked about the case of highly dissimilar abilities. What about 10 vs 15, the case in question. Well... they're quite simply a very similar level of ability. Not identical... as has been shown, there is, in fact, a difference in these abilities in percentage outcome. But, they're right, it's not large. Anyone in the audience ever fence? I started fencing when I was pretty young (taught by my father), and a friend of mine decided to take it up in college, so we could take the class together. Unsurprisingly I was better than he was. What did that mean? That he rarely got touches on me? No, actually he did pretty regularly - just under half over time. In fact, there were days he actually beat me. Over the long haul, I won more than he did, but not by a lot. In fact I held a margin of frustratingly few bouts. And that was with a whole heck of a lot more experience. Like he was, I dunno, a 13, and I was a 17. Basic familiarity level vs basic competency. I might even flatter myself that I had a mastery like 3W. What HQ says with it's small margins for characters in the same bracket is that, if you don't have a mastery over your opponent, you quite simply are taking a substantial risk, one not all that dissimilar from flipping a coin. One mastery means you can be pretty confident... but you'll still get beat regularly. Two masteries means you only lose on the odd occasion. Three masteries means you are near certain of winning, but still can be beat. (Huh, look at that, it's even mentioned in the book.) This is life. These are not contests that "No self-respecting hero would lose" but ones that they might well. Else we don't bother rolling. In short, this goes to what I've always said. HQ is not about having a superior character, and safely winning against opponents (that's D&D 4E!). It's about taking risks, even marginal ones, even ones where you're odds of winning aren't even, because you care about something enough to try it. And it's about learning that heroes lose as often as they win (watch any action movie, and see that the pacing is always about even). And that heroism isn't about always winning, but persisting despite failure. And... it's about winning against the odds. The fact that HQ doesn't make the superior side win with confidence means that you can take on that giant, and have a reasonably good chance that you'll bring it down. Which is damn cool. Again, this isn't just some theory that I've developed on the cold internet. I've watched players rolling, worried about the outcome of the roll, because they know that they're far from guaranteed anything, and loving their failures as much as their victories. Have lots of giants come along with lots of masteries to step on the PCs. Once they learn the difference masteries make, then all of a sudden that feeling that your ability level difference doesn't matter suddenly makes sense. Oh... I am not a giant stepping on an ant. I am one human dealing with another. I could go on and on about how this also means that augmenting means a lot (which is ultra-cool), the cyclical effect of being near or far from the mastery level, and about five more angles to the argument, but as you can see I've already gone on at some length, and I was trying to avoid that... Just keep playing, and it all works out. At least it always has for me. Mike
To: HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com
From: danwater_at_...
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:35:25 +0000
Subject: Re: odds
I agree with Nikodemus Mike. Can you expand on what you said because you're being a little cryptic.
Dan
>
> 2009/11/8 Mike Holmes <mike_c_holmes_at_...>:
>
> > Either Mr. Laws is sort of savant for having determined the optimal system (which uses
> > opposed d20 rolls and masteries), or he got very lucky. Or a bit of each.
> [snip]
> > I know... you look at it, and you say, well it just looks wrong. It even kinda feels wrong
> > at first (which is why folks end up trying this stuff). But it's not wrong. It's very,
> > very right.
>
> Can you expand on this a little? Specifically on the things that look
> and feel wrong but are right: what are they, and why are they right?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Nikodemus
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail