The Gaming Den

Wow. You wouldn't give up your father's sword to save a lowly companion of yours? Knowing this attitude, would you begrudge your companions not sticking their necks out for your character? Without having some reason to think the companion being saved is important? No. Ye Standarde Dungeon Crawl Mer...

Given: 1% tested are positive. 80% of positive, test positive. 9.6% of negative, test positive. Subject tests positive. --- Inferrred --- There is a 100-9.6-80 = 10.4% chance of the test failing. You can't assume the cahnce of the test failing is the same for both those with and without cancer. (1%...

I posted a wiki link a long while back on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem I know the physics of the situation, but you said... The problem is not because of the lack of gravity (which, by the way, is not a matter of physics, that's motherfvcking MATH at work) Its easy enough t...

Starmaker wrote:The hollow world, on the other hand, does not work, like, at all. The problem is not because of the lack of gravity (which, by the way, is not a matter of physics, that's motherfvcking MATH at work)

Do you mind explaining that?

If something needs more than a 17 (on 3d6), under normal circumstances (no hero points or similar), it won't happen. If it needs more than a 18 (on 3d6), it is (effectively) impossible. And if it reqires an 18? What I want is for people to be facing the actual risk that they can be killed -by- swor...

I would say that a 1% chance is the smallest chance that has a meaningful chance of occuring. Setting that to a 0.5% chance is the lowest that even -can- occur on 3d6 (barring "must fail twice in a row" or something). I am wondering whether you were talking about chances (for individual e...

Having a 0.99% chance is as meaningless as a 0.0000001% chance in any given encounter. So changing 1.00% to 0.99% changes a meaningfull chance to a meaningless one, but changing 0.99% to 0.0000001% makes no difference? Do you expect the players of your game to share that opinion? [absurdity] If som...

In Taken's example, the Dragon shouldn't have used firebreath. But in the absence of a resource management system nothing has changed next round. Pretty much all the sugestions here run into problems very similar to "nothing has changed next round". With the WoF there is no round-to-round...

The point is, the situation actually has to -be- dire for that. It can be. Quite easily in fact. The stats for death rate do not tell you how or why people die. If the situation is dire if you stay, but there is an easy way out, then most people will take that way out. That gives a low overall deat...

Having a 3% chance of death means that the "you have to retreat or you will not be around to fight another day." reason becomes a fething -joke-. Not really. You never retreat immediatly from a battle - that would be a joke. You retreat when the situation looks dire. If retreating works, ...

Having a roughly 2.5% chance of death against a superior opponent is a chance so slim as to be essentially meaningless in any given fight. That is not a meaningful combat. That is a fight so easy that you could do it with your off hand and still win most of the time. Borrrrrrringgggggggg. Thats fin...

Those are the chances when you go into the fight, before you know what happens. Ignoring hero points. No. It takes hero point into account. You did not say how many deaths you would expect if there were no hero points, so the calculation takes hero points into account. Ignoring retreating before you...

Roughly. I would like to make sure that character deaths aren't -likely- to be higher than the number of players (I am using hero points for a reason, and it isn't to let people do higher-than-could-otherwise-be-achieved successes), but that's as good a sum up as is going to happen. Quite possible ...

I see it as a distinct possibility but not a given. As in, I can see people being able to preserve a character to the end of the campaign without having to do anything out-of-the-ordinarily cautious. I wouldn't say it -will- happen. Your choices will influence this. Sometimes bold but risky things ...

Depends on what happens. And what people spend their hero points on. You have at most a 70% chance of failing against anything you're supposed to be able to soak (as stated, catapult missiles are "you die." unless you get out of the way, which can be done by hero points.) How likely it is...

Murtak wrote:Levels make it easier to keep everyone at the same table at the same power level. The same goes for opponents.

They can also be very good for creating the illusion that everyone at the same table is at the same power level.

Your likelyhood of dying at anything you can be expected to soak (instead of spending a point to not -be- there when a catapult rock would slam into you.) is closer to probably around 70% as a cap than 90. The assumption -is- that you are wearing mail, however (which is good armor by the standards ...

Post due to misreading (ignore).

Do you or do you not not get "It isn't that simple." You have -a chance- of winning. Some encounters -as individual encounters- have that being very high. Some have it very low. Imagine that you are not playing that game - instead you are watching other people play the game. You do not ge...

So, more relevantly, if you want a zero chance of death vs. common orcs, then how do you have the situation with Drizzt where you would be "in a sore position indeed!" if the other guys press their attack? Or even the initial scenario, which could have killed one or both of them (odds pre...

The chances, yes. The actual outcome, in actual play, with actual decisions and actual dice, maybe, maybe not. In the United States, a bit less than 1% of the males share my first name. I've met at least two Georges and I know well enough to remember the names less than two hundred people. Maybe le...

A fifty-fifty fight should be one the PCs can lose . Good tactics can win it by the PCs. They can also lose to enemy good tactics, but that doesn't mean that they can't or won't win. Thats not a fifty-fifty fight. A fifty-fifty fight would be one where a well informed estimate of the PCs chance of ...

Fuck that. I'm playing a badass hero, and he's damn well special. More special than everyone in his goddamn town, and more special than almost all other members of his race, with the exception of those who are higher level. He is that one in ten billion. If there are less than ten billion in the wo...

Hicks wrote:I know. You either gotta roll a concentration check you will never fail, ever, every time you attack, wasting everybody's time, or there is no cool synergy; which was why originally even though it was (Sp), it arbitrailary did not provoke an AoO. What's it gonna be?

Take 1?

Any that I missed? I think that #4 is not technically a sloution to the problem. Simple forms of #4 are basically equivalent to the original solution. If #4 works as a technical solution, then you don't need groups at all, as players can use the tactics described in #4 in the original set-up. Note:...