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

[Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@xxxxxxxxx>]

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! :-(" 
- ie., they seem very much based on feelings, not on analysis of the actual 
odds.

(Now, JA will undoubtedly tell me that good quality troops *don't* lose to 
poor ones - but even in the situations he's been in, which I'd describe in 
game terms as D10+ quality troops with D8+ armour fighting D4 quality 
troops with D4 armour, the high-quality guys still take 
casualties  occasionally - IOW, in game terms they still lose the 
occasional opposed die roll.)

Regards,

Oerjan
orjan.ariander1@xxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l