RE: (OT) Rules "inspiration" (was [OT] Bring and Battle

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Tim Jones wrote:

> Yes the difference is the motivation for the analysis.

What was your motivation for stating that anyway? I don't know what you
intended, but it came off as a scare tactic: "If you continue doing
that,
people might consider you a powergamer."

Gee whiz, I'm shaking in my boots. Please don't excommunicate me, I'll
repent! (Not)

Some people apparently consider me the anti-christ or worse. I couldn't
care less. I set up my "Hate Me" page because I grew tired of lame-ass
idiots sending me anonymous hate mail (surprisingly, it worked). 
 
> Being heuristically designed shouldn't rule out mathematical
> validation if you want to do it.

Actually, I think heuristics is probably a better way to begin the
design
process, unless you have some very hard data you want to model. 

I just think mathematical analysis can save *tons* of work validating
the
final system.

Getting back to the GRW example, it'd take 15 minutes or so to punch all
the possible dice and target numbers in Excel and get out a nice graph
showing the chances of success -- even a numerically challanged person
can
spot any oddities in that. Compare to *hundreds* of dice rolls required
to
get the same result out of pure playtesting.

And call me heretic if you will, but I have a real problem with "The
Bible
is the Word of God because it says so in The Bible, which can only be
correct because it is the Word of God because it says so..." line of
reasoning.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	   | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice   | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |