I think 4df is a great-sized bell curve;I personally like the *chance* of annihilating someone without having to spend a bunch of FP. I love those rolls where everyone at the table goes "OOOOOOH!" in unison. With this system, of course, it's even more significant, since it's not just the same 5% to land on anything.
The whole idea of having the big spread is that skills aren't always going to be exactly the same between attacker and defender like in your example. I had a bad guy boss with high combat skills who was just wailing on a player, forcing him to spend a bunch of FP on defense rolls, when the player came back and rolled a ++++ attack, and the boss guy defended with a whopping ----, and got obliterated! It was fun to see the tables turn like that.
I can't stand those mind-numbing conflicts where everyone is just whittling each other down over 18 rounds. I mean the whole reason we use dice is to add unpredictability, right? There's plenty of other ways to simplify conflicts, without messing with the richness of the mechanics.
---- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com
, Bloomfield <etbloomfield@...> wrote:
> Thinking about opposed rolls, and conflicts in particular. The basic rule is
> that you take your attack skill (Fists) + 4dF and compare to the opponents
> defensive skill (Athletics [dodge]) +4dF. Ignoring aspects, and assuming
> that attacker and defender have the same skill level (say +3), you will get
> a spread of results ranging from -8 to +8:
> Attacker: worst -1, best +7
> Defender: worst +7, best -1 (worst/best from Attacker's perspective
> Difference: worst -8, best +8
> Spread: 16 (that's 1.5x the length of the Ladder)
> That seems like a huge amount of variation; at the same time by effectively
> rolling 8dF rather than 4dF the results are much more heavily pulled toward
> the middle of -1, 0, +1. (Chances of getting that 8 point difference is 1 in
> 6561, or 0.00015%.)
> I am thinking it's a bit too much possible variation, and it comes at the
> price of having to roll the dice twice to resolve one action. So here is the
> Opposed rolls become simple actions, with the relevant defensive skill as
> the difficulty. In our example above, the attacker would roll Fists (Good
> +3) against a difficulty of Good +3 (Defenders Athletics). Both attacker and
> defender can invoke/tag aspects as usual, except that the defender can't
> re-roll, only add +2.
> - The overall spread of results is reduced to 8 points.
> - Only one roll is required to resolve opposed actions.
> - Without using aspects (or other boosters, like in magic), you can't
> generate more than 4 shifts against an opponent of equal skill rank.
> - Average results become slightly less likely, and extreme results (+4/-4)
> slightly more likely.
> - Defender doesn't get to roll - which isn't as satisfying as making a
> dramatic "saving" roll.
> Has anyone considered this, or perhaps even tried unopposed opposed rolls?
> Anything I've missed?