From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Vampire vs. Hero vs. Gurps etc...(Long!)
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:25:07 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>	The same example also requires someone to make *two* difficulty 9 
>>successes in order to catch a thrown torch, using this same number of 
>>successes mechanics. 
>
>Again --get a marginal success and you caught it, but you caught
>it by the wrong end.  Ooops.
...
>It splits up the concept of how difficult something is to do and 
>how well you need to be able to do it, which is pretty rare in RPGs.

	But this difference is *completely arbitrary*, as the examples 
show. Whether you want to call catching the torch by the wrong end a 
'marginal success' or a 'failure' is pointless and serves only to 
complicate things. Another GM might call for a higher difficulty and 
say that catching it by the wrong end was a 'failure'. Neither of these 
choices is right or wrong - they are both equally valid. Hence requiring 
this choice is useless. 

>
[My example of climbing a tree deleted]
>
>All I can say is that I don't find it very hard at all.  Whether 
>you want to set the difficulty at 4 and require 7 successes, or vice 
>versa, depends on your conception of the task. If it's easy to get started 
>on something but you need to work on it for a while, or you need to do a lot 
>better than the bare minimum, then it's a low difficulty number and a high 
>number of successes. Hard to do, but you only need a slightly better than 
>average success?  High target, low number of successes.

	As I said, these differences are all a matter of interpretation. 
What is climbing a tall tree like? It's relatively easy to get started, but 
it is difficult to reach the top, because there are some portions where 
there are very few branches. What is the 'bare minimum', a 'marginal success'?
Is that getting into the tree at all (trivial), or making it up a significant 
portion of the way? 

	All of this confusion can be eliminated by just having a method of 
rolling which *always* distinguishes how well you do. Ars Magica, for example, 
distinguishes between marginal success and great successes *as well as* 
marginal failures and awful failures - with greater simplicity and no 
arbitrary distinction on the part of the GM. 

>
>It's a matter of personal preference whether you want to trade the
>slight added complexity for the flexibility (what a slanted way to
>put it.  heh).  I compare it to the tradeoff of one attack roll
>modified by some defense factor vs. a defense and an attack roll.

	Hello? What exactly is the 'added flexibility' you gain by 
having a defense roll vs. an attack roll rather than a modified attack 
roll? 
	Take Ars Magica as an example. It is mechanically equivalent for 
the attacker to roll (2d10 + attack - defense) as for both combatants to 
roll (1d10 + factor) as a contest. There is *no* 'added flexibility' in 
the second case. (Not that I'm saying the second case is worse, just that 
it is not more flexible). 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | "The future's not the same anymore."
Columbia University         | "What the hell's wrong with my langauge."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy