From: Graeme A Lindsell (gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au)
Date: Wed 01 Sep 1993 - 18:10:04 EEST
>
> Graeme Lindsell writes:
>
> > ii) Use Statx5 rolls more. In CoC the statx5 roll is used quite a
> > bit: the intx5 idea roll, the edux5 know roll etc. I think these
>
> I like to handle it the other way round: let the players roll d100, and
> see below which multiplyer te result is, this gives me several levels of
> success without rolling dice over much.
>
> Of course this postulates that people can multiply numebers between one
> and twenty with numbers between one and seven. Normal education ought to
> produce this skill around the age of eleven...
The aim of using a standard roll is to speed up play. Most, if not
all players can multiply those numbers. Many can even do it quickly.
What they can't do is do them instantly, and so the game slows down.
To me, the best way to give a player a harmless introduction to a
game is to give everything he needs to know on the character sheet.
>
> The exact nature of modifyers (multiply/divide versus add/substract) has
> been the topic of many a discussion I had about RQ4 with the players of
> my group. Both tend to be unfair and unbalanced: either the lower skills
> are effectively reduced to zero (1 to 5 succeeds), or the higher skills
> are penalized more than the lower. Neither is the desired effect. Any
> ideas to solve this?
> --
> Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de
>
I've heard the "reduce to zero" argument before, and never understood
it. If someone is facing a task that is beyond their ability, their
chance _should_ be zero IMO. I like the way negative mods can reduce
a chance of success of the lower skilled to nil while leaving the
better trained with a decent chance of success. To me, it's a
feature, not a bug.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:29 EEST