Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Risky moves and the number of dice

Expand Messages
  • Pierre-Alexandre Sicart
    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
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
    • Joe Murphy
      ... 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
      • 0 Attachment
        > 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.
      • Pierre-Alexandre Sicart
        ... 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
        • 0 Attachment
          > > 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.
        • Mike Holmes
          ... 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
          • 0 Attachment
            >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/
          • Joe Murphy
            ... 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
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              > >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.