|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 2:50PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
So, ever since 3e I've been using average damage for some things instead of rolling. Example: instead of finding 10d6 and rolling them for a fireball, I just say it's 35 points of damage and move on with the game. As a DM, I pretty much did this for any monster attack, and it sped up play greatly... no more hunting around for a particular type of die, no more carefully adding up different dice, etc. It was somewhat similar to how DDM handled damage. Now in 4e, combat is designed to go faster, but take more rounds. More dice are rolled for an average attack, and both damage and HP are increased so that the standard deviation of damage die over the course of a battle is surprisingly small. The non-d20 dice don't really contribute as much as one would think. Given that rolling damage doesn't contribute in a very significant way to the overall probabilities (especially compared to the swinginess of the d20 roll), it did not seem worth it to me to invest in the extra overhead. i.e. in a sufficiently experienced/fast group, the additional rolling/calculating can effectively double the time that it takes to resolve a turn... it may not seem like it, but the mental gear shifting and such involved can significantly reduce the pace of a game (plus the extra dice tend to take up a lot of table space  ). I know that many players still like the 'feel' of damage dice even if they don't do as much now (it's similar to the frisson one feels from gambling), but I personally view them as breaking immersion anyways. I'd rather have combat go almost twice as fast. As a DM, that's simply the type of game I wish to run. Comments?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 3:06PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2008
|
Well, if you really want to speed things up I guess that might be a good way to do it. Personally, I don't like it and I know my play group would hate it. It removes a great deal of randomness from the game which for us is part of the fun of playing a RPG in the first place.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 3:22PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
It removes a great deal of randomness from the game
That's the point: my contention is that it actually does not.
which for us is part of the fun of playing a RPG in the first place.
So (hypothetically) if it was mathematically proven that static damage amounts somehow increased standard deviation (i.e. randomness), would you then have more fun using static damage amounts over rolling damage?
My contention is that it is the perception of randomness* (or perhaps just the coolness of the dice) that people enjoy.
It is also my contention that accomplishing twice as much would be more enjoyable regardless of one's perception.
*Oddly, many people have even argued before for bell-curved probabilities (example: 3d6) over linear (example: d20) probabilities, even though (or perhaps because) the standard deviation is greatly reduced.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 3:36PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2008
|
Rolling dice is random. Applying an average is not.
Averages don't always match what a player would roll (over time) in actuality. For instance, just because statistically I should roll a 3 1 in 6 times on a d6 doesn't mean that I will. True, the odds are that I have a 1 in 6 chance, but in actuality it might take me 10 or 20 rolls to come up with a 3. It might also take me a single roll to come up with a 3. Or I migt roll a 3 multiple times in a row. Take that away and you take away randomness.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 4:03PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
Rolling dice is random.
Again, the point is that the damage die have reached to point where they are not creating enough randomness to warrant the overhead.
Averages don't always match what a player would roll (over time) in actuality. For instance, just because statistically I should roll a 3 1 in 6 times on a d6 doesn't mean that I will. True, the odds are that I have a 1 in 6 chance, but in actuality it might take me 10 or 20 rolls to come up with a 3. It might also take me a single roll to come up with a 3. Or I migt roll a 3 multiple times in a row. Take that away and you take away randomness.
I don't get the impression that you completely understand the standard deviations, bell curves, probabilities, etc. involved, but that's ok. Your perception as a regular player is indeed noted. Thank you.
I'd be curious to hear from some actual statistician/mathematician types (and also from some psychological types). Although I work with banking software development now, I studied more the latter in college.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 4:06PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2002
|
My contention is that it is the perception of randomness* (or perhaps just the coolness of the dice) that people enjoy.
It is also my contention that accomplishing twice as much would be more enjoyable regardless of one's perception.
Think about what you are saying... with regards to how one feels about an experience, the only thing that matters is ones perception. They aren't going to have more fun if you prove to them that the thing they are perceiving isn't true, because their perception is going to determine whether or not they are having fun.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 4:13PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
|
Applying an average cuts down on the chance for dramatic tension. If I know a monster has a 10d6 ability then I know he will do 35 damage, period. If I have 36hp I am safe for next round. If I know he does 10d6 and you will be rolling it, well that could be anything from 10 to 60. If I have 36 hitpoints the chances are I'll be ok, but there's a large chance I won't be ok and a small chance I will die outright.
You can cite all the curves, deviation, and theory you want but dramatic tension is half the fun. If you turn it into magic the gathering where each creature has a set damage, you make it into a numbers game not a roleplaying game.
Resistance 10 to fire means a lot more against a 35 damage fireball than to a 10d6 fireball and the players know that if they can somehow get their resistance to 35, they are completely immune to the fireballs.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 4:17PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I don't think it's needed? Fun! but not needed. Some of my players like to roll damage even if they know they are fighting minions. They just want to roll damage.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 4:21PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
Applying an average cuts down on the chance for dramatic tension.
I contend that the d20 (i.e. hit/not hit) accounts for 80-90% of that dramatic tension while the damage die (contributing little in the way of standard deviation) only add to dramatic tension in edge cases (like what you described). Conversely, if you play twice as fast, you should theoretically increase dramatic opportunities by about 100%.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 28, 2008 - 4:22PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2002
|
I do understand how the deviations and probabilities work, but I think they are irrelevant to whether or not the game is fun. The deviations and probabilities are useful in predicting whether or not the game will be "balanced" on average, but play no role in determining whether or not people will have fun.
Yes using averages for damage rolls would average out to the same thing as rolling the damage dice. And it would not hurt the randomness much. You get more than enough randomness in the D20 roll itself (assuming you are at least still doing that) to keep the element of chance in the game.
But your assumption that speeding up combat (assuming your proposal would speed up combat for the sake of argument [I actually don't think it would]) is "more fun" seems to be predicated on your implicit assumption that "more is better" (more encounters that is). But that is an assumption. Not a fact. I certainly don't think it is necessarily even true.
I think the primary element in determining whether or not the players are having fun comes down to the degree to which they are involved and engaged in play, and that the speed at which the game is progressing is secondary.
Certainly, you don't want the game to progress too slowly or else players will feel like they are constantly "waiting" rather than being engaged. But the sweet spot from the fun perspective is likely NOT the mode of play that allows the encounters to go by the most quickly. The difference between rolling dice and computing averages is very minor in my opinion. If the players are engaged, they'll be ready to roll their dice when their turn comes. They'll throw them down immediately as they explain what they are going to do for their turn, then they'll take a couple seconds to add up the results.
I think another thing you might be ignoring is the suspense factor. A lot of times the primary fun component is coming in those moments where a combatant is on the edge of life and death, the dice are about to be rolled, and everything is suspensfully waiting to see what the result is going to be. As an example, think of those moments during play when everyone is hollering out a big "cheer" as the dice resolve on the table. Removing damage dice rolls removes that element from the game.
|
|
|
