## Risky moves and the number of dice

Expand Messages
• 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
Message 1 of 5 , Oct 1, 2004
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.
• ... players ... 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
Message 2 of 5 , Oct 1, 2004
> 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?

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.
• ... Ah, true. Basic maths here. *blushes* Still, it prevents extreme results too, especially failures (since you can transform a - into a + with an
Message 3 of 5 , Oct 1, 2004
> > 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?
>
>
> 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.

Ah, true. Basic maths here. *blushes* Still, it prevents extreme results
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.
• ... Actually you have this precisely backwards. More dice means less chance of rolling precisely zero. With two it s still 33%, with three it s 26%, with four
Message 4 of 5 , Oct 1, 2004
>From: "Joe Murphy" <broin@...>

>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.

Actually you have this precisely backwards. More dice means less chance of
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 ... two ... The ... chance of ... with ... Considering how many analyses of Fudge probablities there are, there s really no excuse to
Message 5 of 5 , Oct 1, 2004
>
> >From: "Joe Murphy" <broin@...>
>
> >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.
>
> Actually you have this precisely backwards. More dice means less
chance of
> 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).

Considering how many analyses of Fudge probablities there are, there's
really no excuse to misunderstand the probablities. Thanks, Mike. =)

Joe.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.