From: johnjmedway (jjm@zycor.lgc.com)
Date: Tue 01 Feb 1994 - 02:41:21 EET
Loren:
>> Subject: Skill vs skill, and more heresy
>> Date: 31 Jan 1994 19:23:07 -0500 (EST)
>>
>> Given that some people like Paul Reilly think we should discard the
>> "lower is better" philosophy in RQ, what is their reason for sticking
>> with that philosophy for critical and special successes?
...
>> Any roll where the ones digit is a 0 and the tens digit is even is a
>> critical. If it is a success then it's a critical success, if it's a
>> failure then it's a fumble.
...
>>
>> Does a system like this appeal to anybody?
It was shot down by Joerg and others when I suggested it last summer.
I still like it. Hopefully they don't still hate it.
FYI: Where the old thread began, for those of you who want to review
the old arguments:
me:
>> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 13:04:14 CDT
>> Subject: SKILL CONTESTS + REDEFINE CRITICALS?
>> ...
>> What if Criticals were redefined to be any die roll ending in "0", and Specials,
>> any die roll ending in "8" or "9"? (Yes I know this increases the chance of
>> criticals, but bear with me.) Then we would have Critical Success = successful
>> roll ending in "0", and critical failure = failed roll ending in "0". We'd have
>> Special Success and Failure with similar simple, non-computational methods.
>> This would provide an easy method of brancing out degrees of success and failure,
>> as several people have hinted would be desirable.
>> ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:20 EEST