- Just an idea crossing my mind. A possibility. What about letting the players

decide how much risk they're willing to take? In game terms, what about

letting them choose the number of dice (between 1 and 4) they want to roll?

In a chess match, to use an example from the Fate rules, it would mimick

playing conservatively versus going for more risky moves. > Just an idea crossing my mind. A possibility. What about letting the

players

> decide how much risk they're willing to take? In game terms, what about

roll?

> letting them choose the number of dice (between 1 and 4) they want to

Because the odds of rolling an average effect - a zero - would decrease

dramatically.

With one dice, there's a 33% chance of rolling a +1, -1, or 0. With two

dice, there's more chance of getting a zero than any other result. The

more dice, the more likely a zero is.

Joe.> > Just an idea crossing my mind. A possibility. What about letting the

Ah, true. Basic maths here. *blushes* Still, it prevents extreme results

> > players

> > decide how much risk they're willing to take? In game terms, what about

> > letting them choose the number of dice (between 1 and 4) they want to

> > roll?

>

>

> Because the odds of rolling an average effect - a zero - would decrease

> dramatically.

>

> With one dice, there's a 33% chance of rolling a +1, -1, or 0. With two

> dice, there's more chance of getting a zero than any other result. The

> more dice, the more likely a zero is.

too, especially failures (since you can transform a "-" into a "+" with an

Aspect). I usually think that allowing players to make small tactical choice

if they want to is a good idea.>From: "Joe Murphy" <broin@...>

Actually you have this precisely backwards. More dice means less chance of

>Because the odds of rolling an average effect - a zero - would decrease

>dramatically.

>

>With one dice, there's a 33% chance of rolling a +1, -1, or 0. With two

>dice, there's more chance of getting a zero than any other result. The

>more dice, the more likely a zero is.

rolling precisely zero. With two it's still 33%, with three it's 26%, with

four it's 23%, and so on. So, more dice definitely creates a greater

standard deviation (often associated with risk).

What I'd do is allow a range from 3 to 5 dice. This means that there's

always some risk at least, normal risk, or higher than normal risk.

Mike

_________________________________________________________________

Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/>

decrease

> >From: "Joe Murphy" <broin@...>

>

> >Because the odds of rolling an average effect - a zero - would

> >dramatically.

two

> >

> >With one dice, there's a 33% chance of rolling a +1, -1, or 0. With

> >dice, there's more chance of getting a zero than any other result.

The

> >more dice, the more likely a zero is.

chance of

>

> Actually you have this precisely backwards. More dice means less

> rolling precisely zero. With two it's still 33%, with three it's 26%,

with

> four it's 23%, and so on. So, more dice definitely creates a greater

Considering how many analyses of Fudge probablities there are, there's

> standard deviation (often associated with risk).

really no excuse to misunderstand the probablities. Thanks, Mike. =)

Joe.