Re: (TFT) One more go at this --> d12 plus d8.

["Ty Beard" <tbeard@tyler.net>]

I find this method an interesting statistical exercise, but it still does
not really solve my problems with TFT as well as using a d20.

----- Original Message -----
From: "rsmith" <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>


> Stan wrote:
>
>  sure.  Here's result :
> # of combos : % chance - Aprox chance of this # or less
>
>  2 : 1 : 1.041 ~ 1%
>  3 : 2 : 2.083 ~ 3%
>  4 : 3 : 3.125 ~ 6%
>  5 : 4 : 4.166 ~ 10%
>  6 : 5 : 5.208 ~ 15%
>  7 : 6 : 6.25 ~ 22%
>  8 : 7 : 7.291 ~ 29%
>  9 : 8 : 8.333 ~ 37%
> 10 : 8 : 8.333 ~ 45%
> 11 : 8 : 8.333 ~ 54%
> 12 : 8 : 8.333 ~ 62%
> 13 : 8 : 8.333 ~ 71%
> 14 : 7 : 7.291 ~ 78%
> 15 : 6 : 6.25 ~ 84%
> 16 : 5 : 5.208 ~ 90%
> 17 : 4 : 4.166 ~ 94%
> 18 : 3 : 3.125 ~ 97%
> 19 : 2 : 2.083 ~ 99%
> 20 : 1 : 1.041 = 100%

Here, the middle 2 quartiles (25% to 75% chance of success) fall between
~7.5 and ~13.5. So 7 data points define the middle, vs 5 for 3d6, 6 for 2d10
and 11 for 1d20. This isn't significantly better than the 2d10 approach, it
seems to me. Also, there is still a huge jump from the average of 10 to
11 -- 11% -- and from 11 to 12 -- 8%. Again, it's slightly better than 2d10,
but nowhere near as good as the d20 in my estimation.

I do have one question though -- why is there so much concern with keeping
the bell curve? The real effect of any bell curve is to marginalize the
extremes and make those numbers virtually meaningless. And, it overrates the
middle numbers and disproportionately rewards increases in the middle range
(or disproportionately punishes decreases in the middle range). For
instance: If the vast majority of rolls are on 3d6, there is little
effective difference between any DX of 6- (and none between 3, 4, and 5).
Ditto for 15+. The net effect is that the efficient characters concentrate
their stats in a relatively narrow range (9-12 is pretty typical in my
experience) because that's where you get the greatest bang for the buck. The
numbers are a little different for 2d10 or d8 + d12, but the problem is
similar.

Yet a d20 system will effectively distinguish between very low ratings. A DX
of 5 is far better than the 3d6 system DX of 5 (5% success). And a DX of 15
is far less potent than a 3d6 system DX of 15 (95% success). The result is
that characters can *meaningfully* benefit from a much larger range of
ability scores, without the GM having to contrive outlandishly difficult
tasks. In other words, the entire scale from 2-19 is effectively useable by
the players rather than 6-15. 18 numbers rather than 9. And there is no
mathematical pressure that disproportionately forces attributes into the
10-12 range. Good Things, IMHO.

> On a simply practical side, I
> think that people are more likely to
> want the simplicity of 3d6 or 1d20.

That is perhaps the most devastating critique of a d8+d12 system. It is
frightfully non-intuitive and would probably not be accepted by most gamers.

An acquaintance who has the interesting characteristic of hating any idea I
come up with made an alternative suggestion for TFT -- just make it much
harder to add attributes by raising the EP cost to much higher levels. Seems
a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

--Ty
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"