Post by Cameron "Booker" on Feb 11, 2016 1:13:48 GMT
I spoke with Jeff a bit about this at the Super Bowl Party but I really feel like this game loses a lot of the strategy it could have because of the pure luck involved with a 20 sided die.
Obviously if you went as small as a 10 or possibly even 12 sided there would be other issues. Mainly the loss of the risk involved with going after higher difficulty moves because the gap between DC's would have to shrink with a smaller die.
ie. If the difference between a 10 point goal and 20 point goal is 1 or 2 there's no point in going for the former.
While this limits the ability for the game to be played in real life as a board game for the sake of the planning and strategy that makes an RP revolving around it fun I would suggest we go to a "14 - 16 sided die".
If this game were to ever be ported to a table top version you could easily go back to 20 sided as a board game is more aptly based on luck as the players won't be spending a week coming up with strategy.
Tl;dr For the sake of this RP we should use 14-16 sided die rolls and if it becomes a board game you could go back to D20
Post by Vester Lombard on Mar 2, 2016 18:15:19 GMT
I'm just now understanding why 2d10 does not make any sense for a Success/Fail system. Sure, it makes the rolls seem more average but it doesn't ACTUALLY change the game in the way we think it does. Think about it this way -- A roll of a 2 is actually the same thing as a roll of 10; they both fail. So does it matter that a 10 is more probable than a 2? Not at all. In a 1d20 system we perceive 1's and 20's as wildly random, when actually they are the same as any other failed or successful number.
Therefore, a 2d10 system is only helpful when the numeric value actually matters. For example, if we were dealing damage with a 1d20, losing 2 HP is drastically different than losing 10 HP.
The only effect 2d10 is having on Quidditch is the slightly greater effect of skill bonuses/IP's on Easier DC's, which is a weird and possibly unwanted result. If we want to achieve a different balance of success/failure, we are better off keeping 1d20 and adjusting the DC's.
Post by Quinn Starling on Mar 2, 2016 18:30:25 GMT
Should we also consider adjusting amount of DC/action type options? Because right now, some positions only have two options. With Keeper & Seeker only having medium & hard options, I'd personally feel bummed about playing those while my teammates have an easy option, allowing for more possible successes and lifted moral.
Should each position have say, 3 solid moves in 3 difficulty classes like before, just with adjusted DC levels? Or maybe having 4 classes would help spread that out? More successes on easy moves but still with the high risk/high reward at the other end if you're feeling bold?
OR should we try narrowing them down to just two classes/action types? If we did a d10, we could try the Easy DC at 5 and Hard DC at 8.
I'm not as good at running numbers/stats/probability as Walltur, but I figured if we're going to adjust DC levels and dice size, we should also factor in amount of moves/amount of difficulty classes per position.
What I'm finding frustrating about the 2d10 system is the idea that you need to roll high twice in the same roll in order to achieve either a medium or high success, even before you factor in penalties and successes. Like Vester mentioned above, having modifiers having different effects on different difficulty levels really isn't that helpful. It felt more balance when all actions were effected equally.
I'd be good for returning to the 1d20 system, and changing the DC levels can help bring about more balance. I did have one option come to mind to make low effect actions more tempting to go for:
Synergy (Low DC only): If you were to fail one of these rolls, you may combine this roll (including modifiers) with another roll of the same type made by yourself or another player this round.
I realize its radical, but I think this would make even low rolls feel a bit more helpful, even if its just to help achieve a minimal effect. It could be a regular mechanic available to everyone or a talent.
Off-topic: I'm really digging the new Keeper actions. It'll be interesting balancing them back into the d20 system, I'd be happy to contribute more to shaping it.
Post by Vester Lombard on Mar 2, 2016 20:28:02 GMT
I also like the new Keeper actions. The main reason for changing it was that in the old system, Keepers raising the DC was effectively the same as Beaters lowering rolls. The positions need to all work differently.
Walltur: Mmk, I can see that now
Mar 17, 2016 15:19:37 GMT
Vester Lombard: Beating a seeker in the 4th is pretty huge. Each IP is essentially erasing the effect of one of their successful searches.
Mar 17, 2016 16:28:34 GMT
Quinn Starling: Yeah, I would have hit Ginger more if I thought she'd rest up or if you'd heal her. But I figured that you guys would maybe leave her at 2 since that was her max, especially since we decided to stay inujurred, too Lol
Mar 17, 2016 16:36:34 GMT
Quinn Starling: We planned back between periods 2-3 to consider staying injured if we got to -3 again, to waste any coming beatings. If you aim for low DCs, have enough skill to make up for the IP, AND get lucky, it's sometimes worth it to keep the damage & keep rolling
Mar 17, 2016 17:34:53 GMT
Vester Lombard: I think in the 2nd period you definitely have to rest. 3rd period, maybe, pending your team strategy. 4th period, probably not.
Mar 17, 2016 21:14:43 GMT
Sprye Tatel: In the interest of not adding a new post each day to the Space Debate threads, would we be interested in sharing ideas via Google Docs? tinyurl.com/zlk8sb3
Mar 21, 2016 5:01:20 GMT
Quinn Starling: I'm in favor of death penalty for illegal pretty floral bonnets. I think that needs to be an argument that happens Lol
Mar 21, 2016 13:54:41 GMT
Walltur: Pro, but under the argument that all viewers of the bonnet be executed, rather than the wearer. Deadly illegal bonnets
Mar 22, 2016 4:16:02 GMT
Quinn Starling: Depends on how pretty. We'd need a numerical rating scale, to start. Any bonnet rated 6 or over (by 2/3 vote of galactic council) is determined "pretty" and a single flower may be defined as "floral." Any fixture worn upon the head may serve as "bonnet."
Mar 22, 2016 15:54:13 GMT
Quinn Starling: (that's on a scale of 1-10) And I'd be against death penalty for illegal ones (unregistered, obtained illegally, etc.) Jail sentencing and community work are appropriate, but not death penalty. Too extreme.
Mar 22, 2016 15:56:18 GMT
Vester Lombard: While I am against the death penalty for pretty floral bonnets, I do think that all people who have encountered the bonnet should have their brains slightly melted. I think this would both save lives and prevent any risk of spreading that fashion
Mar 22, 2016 16:25:34 GMT
Sprye Tatel: Again with the slightly-melting brains proposal? Seems very convenient for the Muppet-race; who can re-grow/stuff brain cells! Whose pocket are you in? Who is pulling your strings!?
Mar 22, 2016 17:16:41 GMT
Sprye Tatel: I say that the punishment should fit the crime: The penalty for Pretty Floral Bonnet's (PFB's) should be death by PFB!
Mar 22, 2016 17:19:46 GMT
Quinn Starling: I have found my people. This is where I belong <3
Mar 22, 2016 23:08:03 GMT
Walltur: Any games coming down the pipe? Online practice game of Cornucopia?
Apr 6, 2016 15:19:22 GMT
Vester Lombard: If you guys want we could try doing some online Galactic Debate. It would lose a bit of the spontaneous improv element when played on the forum, but maybe it could at least help figure out which cards are fun or boring.
Apr 11, 2016 16:36:36 GMT
Quinn Starling: We could schedule a "live" session and either skype or have the speaker type up their response within a certain time frame. So, speaker says they're free at 9pm. At 8:55 they're given their topic, then they have from 9:00-9:05 to type up their platform...?
Apr 11, 2016 17:53:36 GMT