Frank wrote:Having extra d4s increases your average result by substantially reducing your chances of getting a terrible result. Every extra d4 you add cuts the chance that your lowest used die is going to be a 2 or less in half. If you roll two d8s, you have a 1 in 64 chance of getting snake eyes. But if you roll two d8s and two d4s, your chances of rolling snake eyes is less than one in a thousand.
Your high results and indeed your median results are almost unaffected, but your chances of rolling very badly decrease really substantially if you have some extra d4s to call upon.
That is simply a failure of design. The traits do not do what they are supposed to do. Mathematically, it's fucking wrong.
In other words: the d4 traits should be a hindrance, or at least a complication, but theyre not, they are advantageous to the player.
Have them take away dice or make existing dice smaller.
DSMatticus wrote:It's not just that everything you say is stupid, but that they are Gordian knots of stupid that leave me completely bewildered as to where to even begin. After hearing you speak Alexander the Great would stab you and triumphantly declare the puzzle solved.
I'm not familiar with the system other than what people have said here, but would letting your opponent(s) get the dice from penalty traits like "broken arm" and "has a limp" fix the issue? They would usually do nothing because they're still d4s, but instead of sometimes helping the character they sometimes help the person arguing with/shoving/shooting them.
DSMatticus wrote:I sort my leisure activities into a neat and manageable categorized hierarchy, then ignore it and dick around on the internet.
rampaging-poet wrote:I'm not familiar with the system other than what people have said here, but would letting your opponent(s) get the dice from penalty traits like "broken arm" and "has a limp" fix the issue? They would usually do nothing because they're still d4s, but instead of sometimes helping the character they sometimes help the person arguing with/shoving/shooting them.
The issue, from what I can tell from the previous thread, is that it's not supposed to emulate the death spiral of a traditional, attrition-focused RPG, from what I understand. Rather, it's supposed to play out like The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, High Noon, Seven Samurai, etc. The opponents stacks the deck against you, and then you prevail on the skin of your teeth.
Last edited by Sakuya Izayoi on Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sakuya Izayoi wrote:You start each session with 3 drama points.
Every time you want to use a d4 that should be detrimental to what you're doing as a bonus, you spend a drama point.
If 3 isn't enough, then change the number, but you should ideally be spending them on the final boss, not slimes and fairies and shock troopers.
That just means you only ever choose "disadvantage" of having more dice you can't use, since all the other disadvantages are actually disadvantages.
The problem is not just one of a supposed flaw being beneficial, it is that there is a limited playspace. You are literally playing a game where every time you make that decision you pick the same thing. It is like a D&D game where the classes you can choose are Wizard, Commoner, Commoner, and Commoner. Of course everyone chooses Wizard.
Any time you have a choice between disadvantages that are actually bad and ones that are just neutral, you might as well not even write the bad ones.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
What about the d4 traits prohibits the player from using other related traits ?
Ie: I have the belonging "Old Family Rifle: 1d8". Then I get my arm broken in a fight and get the trait "Broken Arm: 1d4". Now, when I get to use my rifle in action, Im not allowed to use the d8 - instead Im forced to use the d4, because the arm that holds the rifle is broken.
If you go back to my original post about why DitV had this problem in the first place, you will notice that I already solved it before you spent two pages huffing paint and trying to convince everyone that having a smaller dicepool is better than a larger one.
Thanks for the input Chamo, but I honestly dont think eliminating the d4s, as you suggested, is a good option, specially because they are directly linked to the game´s particular concept of character progression.
I would be more inclined to eliminate the other (true) disadvantegeous options, and let only the d4s intact.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
I just found out this discussion here, where the author (lumpley) gives his reasons for the d4 issue.
If I understand it correctly, he wanted the d4s to be the main form of fallout, but left the other options open as "optional" to suit each group specific situations and tastes. So its seems to me not a matter of broken math (the d4 dice are indeed advantageous), but a matter of "here, this is what I intended - using the d4s traits - but here are other bunch of options if you feel suits you better".
Dont know, it still looks weird to me. I think cutting out the other disadvantageous fallout (and letting only the d4s) should be ther better option here.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
Yup, and not only that. Im rereading the book and he makes clear that the rating on traits are not meant to represent power, but simply to represent what the player finds more interesting and would like to see dealed with in game. So they are more like flags for the GM use as inspiration for hooks and challenges than anything.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
No disrespect meant, but if you are trying to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of certain mechanics, I think you are missing the point of the game. Which is to create interesting and flawed characters with depth and tell good (and often tragic) stories at the table.
What were these guys smoking? If the point of a game is " to create interesting and flawed characters" then the rules of the game (which ARE the game) should support that.
Morzas wrote:
What were these guys smoking? If the point of a game is " to create interesting and flawed characters" then the rules of the game (which ARE the game) should support that.
And they do, as the d4 traits are supposed to represent flaws and failings. That's why the game incentivates you to take them instead of the other "disadvantages". What's bizarre, at least from a trad RPG standpoint, is the total lack of balance between the available disadvantages.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. This poster is stating that even trying to analyze whether a mechanic is actually making a positive contribution toward the game's goals is a bad thing. Since when was critical thinking wrong?
Morzas wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. This poster is stating that even trying to analyze whether a mechanic is actually making a positive contribution toward the game's goals is a bad thing. Since when was critical thinking wrong?
The joke is that you just described silva.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
