Subject:
|
Re: BrikWars part XII: A Game of Thrones II
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:38:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4408 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau wrote:
> Actually, I always used the second one! I think what I said in the original
> game is that you would never have more than a "+3" for any particular
> attribute unless it was then augmented further from some magical thing or
> what not. The second one seems to be the better representation (at least to
> me).
Works for me-- and considering Joe's lack of time, I'd say we should go ahead
and use the 2nd one instead...
> P.S. I'm not nearly as insane as Shaun and Dave. Take pity on me.
As if to drive the point home, I was just following through something I had been
curious about in the past. I was noticing today that a 1d6+3 was doing better
against a 1d6 than a 2d6 was. And (even odder) better than a 2d6+1 was!
Anyway, to state the quasi-obvious, it's statistically to your advantage to
convert your roll into solid numbers *IF* you're already statistically ahead.
And further, it's statistically to your advantage to convert your rolls into
dice if you're statistically behind.
So I suppose if we err on the side of converting to dice rolls it'll devalue the
massively powerful stuff and enhance the little piddley things. Probably a Good
Thing(tm).
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: BrikWars part XII: A Game of Thrones II
|
| (...) Actually, I always used the second one! I think what I said in the original game is that you would never have more than a "+3" for any particular attribute unless it was then augmented further from some magical thing or what not. The second (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
