From: Paul Reilly (paul@phyast.pitt.edu)
Date: Tue 01 Feb 1994 - 03:55:29 EET
Loren J. Miller writes:
> 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?
Conservatism. If people are used to something, then we shouldn't change
There's nothing wrong with your proposed way, except that thousands (I hope)
it unless it's an improvement. In RQ3, levels of success finer than
'special', 'crit', 'normal', and 'fumble' aren't really defined. It's easy
to add on something new, like saying a Normal 30 is better than a Normal 25,
but it is hard to _change_ the way something is done, like going from
`01-03 is a critical success for a 60% skill' to
`20, 40, and 60' are crits for a 60% skill'.
of RuneQuesters are used to doing it another way. Thus I think it's better
to keep to the old way of deciding crits and specials.
Same argument can be made elsewhere - there is a certain cost in changing
anything over, and the new way should be a distinct improvement, in some sense,
if it is to replace the old way.
- Paul Reilly
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:20 EEST