Re: [GZG] Opposed roll randomness (Was: [SG3]: What if?)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWhen
creating our Samurai game, we encountered a similar problem of die-size
and opposed rolls.  In a counter-intuitive move we simply made "1" the
good
number and better units simply used smaller dice - Super Heroes got d4's
-
Peasants got d20's.  SuperHeroes score a "1" 25% of the time and never
score worse than a 4 - peasants score "1" 5% of the time and only get 4
or
better 25% of the time - so it's possible a super hero will fail to a
peasant, but unlikely and the Superhero will consistently outperform
classes
with lesser dice.

The alternative is to make custom dice - better classes use more
consistent
dice (i.e. d4, d6) that are numbered according to their skill (high
skill =
high numbers, low skill = low numbers)

FYI: Chessex does custom dice, albeit at $0.50 per printed side. (so a
custom d20 with 20 custom sides would be $10.00)

--Binhan

On 2/1/08, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, January 31, 2008 20:31, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> >>  Robert Bryett replied to Samuel Penn:
> >>
> >>>  > Which brings me to my peeve of the randomness of the die
mechanic.
> >>>  > Good troops are less predictable in their results than poor
troops.
> >>>
> >>>I don't understand this comment. The random "mechanic" in SGII is
an
> >>>*opposed* roll, so isn't the result the *difference* between the
> >>>rolls, not the rolls themselves? In this context, I don't see how
the
> >>>performance of either set of troops involved in an opposed roll can
> >>>be called more predictable than the other. Is the theory simply
that
> >>>more sides on the die automatically equals less predictability?
> >>
> >>  I've been wondering this for years...
> >>
> >>  I suspect that at least part of it is a refusal to accept that
having
> the
> >>  better quality (ie. bigger die) does not absolutely guarantee that
> you'll
> >>  win the opposed die roll. To me, comments like Samuel's (and I've
seen
> >>  quite a few of them over the years) always give an impression of
"My
> D10
> >>  rolled a 1 while his D6 rolled a 5, so my Veteran lost to his
Greenie
> -
> >>  that's not fair! My troops are better, they're not *supposed* to
lose!
> >>  :-("
> >
> >I'd say no. Poor troops should be able to beat good troops if
> >they have luck on their side. I've lost very badly at times due
> >to bad dice[1], so I've sort of got used to it :-)
> >
> >However, what I don't like is that if the d12 rolls badly, then
> >a bad roll on the d6 can still beat it. Where there's a big
difference
> >in troop quality, I would prefer that the poorer quality troops have
> >to do well in order to take advantage of the good one's bad luck.
> >This doesn't happen in SG. A bad roll from good troops can result
> >in the other side's roll being almost meaningless - they're going
> >to win.
> >
> >Your example is fine - the greens did very well, and the elites
> >did very badly. It's when the greens roll a 2 and still win that
> >it seems wrong.
>
>
> I can appreciate your point, Sam, but maybe you should just look at
> it as the Vets screwed up  a lot, while the greens screwed up a
> little less..... as someone* once said, "victory goes to the side
> that f***s up NEXT to last..."
>
> [* I think it was Mary Gentle that said it to me, but she may have
> been quoting someone else!]
>
> Jon (GZG)
>
> >
> >Having said that, I think the SG mechanic does work well, and I
> >haven't come up with a way of improving it without complicating
> >things. My complaint is a theoretical one based on how I like
> >mechanics to work.
> >
> >[1] My worst example is in FT, where two dozen groups of heavy
> >	interceptor fighters where wiped out by half their number
> >	of standard fighters, with the standard fighters taking
> >	minimal casualties. That was good luck on the part of my
> >	opponent, plus bad luck on my part. That was in a single
> >	turn of dogfighting.
> >
> >--
> >Be seeing you,	     http://www.glendale.org.uk
> >Sam. 		     xmpp:sam@glendale.org.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Gzg-l mailing list
> >Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> >http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>