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

["Binhan Lin" <binhan.lin@xxxxxxxxx>]

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


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

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