0
edits
Changes
→Poker
:::::::::::::: IQ 127, with a spatial IQ of 164. So... 16-17 Intelligence, 10-12 Wisdom. Constitution appears to have been my dump stat.--[[User:Teh Storm|Teh Storm]] 07:14, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: I disagree with your assessment. A 16 Intelligence is almost epic to us normal humans, unless you claim to be level 20 already,which I doubt. Your Wis score is acceptable however. Most people's scores are around 10-14 really. Two stats at 16 is about as common as me running for american presidency. Not gonna happen in a long time.--[[User:Soulblazer 87|Soulblazer 87]] 07:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Remember the stat bell curve from AD&D? If you compare that bell curve with the IQ average bell curve, my IQ lines up well with the rare end of 15+. This really is a fun way to do Intelligence stat finding. Constitution limits suck to discover, however...--[[User:Teh Storm|Teh Storm]] 07:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Maybe so, but as I said; I go with reality not rules. Rules are there to help maintain reality and continuity, not alter it.--[[User:Soulblazer 87|Soulblazer 87]] 07:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: Not really. No, I'm serious. D&D is primarily a gamist game. Just look at HP. A character at 1 HP fights no worse than a character at 100 HP. A level 10 barbarian will survive a fall from orbit. And more. I can give a ton of examples. D&D is a gamist game. If you want to go ahead and try to make it look like a simulationist one, that's nice, but it's not what the game was designed for, and does horribly at it. However, I highly recommend the Silhouette system if you want a PnP RP system that has a simulationist mindset. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 09:23, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::: Possibly, yes. Point is, so far it's worked for me. Anyway, I've said my peace, I've made my peace, so any further talk is more than likely to be recycling of old points, made again and again in an attempt for each other to transform their opinions into a warhammer and bash them over each other's heads to force compliance. Each to his own really. If it works, it ain't broken, if it ain't broken it doesn't need fixing.--[[User:Soulblazer 87|Soulblazer 87]] 09:28, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
== Poker ==
Something that may work for social checks and also for things like chases. May work for skills, though those are so differing as far as modifiers go that it wouldn't work for them.
*Each person rolls 1d6. DC starts at 10. People start bidding on higher DCs. They can pass, raise, or fold.
*Repeat the 1d6 twice more, having the bidding phase at the end of each. People can continue increasing the DC.
*In the end, everyone adds their modifier. If you succeed you get a success. If you failed you get a failure. If you folded you get a very reduced failure. The last bidder's success or failure is magnified, and if everyone else dropped and the conflict ended on the first or second round of bidding the success is also reduced.
Do over until someone has X successes or Y failures. Might be adapted to chases and the like. If not using ability score mods, may want to increase the variable (d10s? d20s?) Perhaps have the ability score required this time be random (d6, 1 = str, 2 = dex, etc?) Or go down the list. Or have it be decided by each person going around the table. Needs more thought. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 19:47, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
:I don't think this works well. You're not raising because you think you have a better hand than someone else, or to try to bluff them out of the running, but to make it harder for everyone to succeed because that pushes some people out. And that leads to some straightforward strategies where you try to get as many of your side to victory as possible. If you outnumber your foes, you shouldn't ever raise and just rely on probability to get more successes than they do. If you don't outnumber your foes, you should just raise as much as possible the first two times (if there even is a limit on raising) and then fold so that they get more failures than you in the same period. If it's one on one, then the strategy is slightly more involved, but this doesn't get you anything over a regular opposed check so I'm not going to get into it. - [[User:Tarkisflux|TarkisFlux]] 20:53, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
:: Can you think of any ways to fix this problem? I'd like to consider it a little more before making a final decision to scrap it completely. What's the difference in poker that makes these strategies different? Is there any way to emulate it with dice rolls? Also, that wouldn't quite work since if someone raises then they can't fold, which means they're stuck with having to make a DC they can't make, and thus are going to have big failures coming their way. Everyone else folds and laughs as the single character fails their roll spectacularly--and since they were the last bidder, they take the biggest failure. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 21:36, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
:::Well, if you're stuck being "in" if everyone else folds, that mitigates it slightly depending on the relative value of big and little failures. It just changes the number of people you need on each side before suicide is a viable win strategy. If big failures are worth 3 times as much as little failures, suicide ties you with them when they outnumber you by 2, and you just win if there are more of them than that because they fail more than you do per round.
:::But sure, let's look at how this compares to poker. In poker, you can't lose if everyone else folds, so a viable strategy is to trick other people into quitting. In poker you don't bid to make things harder, you bid to make your potential winnings bigger. None of these are true in your proposal. You bid to make the game harder to try to drive other people out, but everyone always has exactly the same amount wagered. And even if you do drive everyone out, you could still wind up losing bigger than anyone who folded.
:::If you want to make this work like poker, ditch the variable DC bit. Highest total roll takes all. Bidding needs to have a cost aside from "now everyone else might fold on you", and I suggest you bid successes. Folding just means the last guy on the table takes the pot, but they do so because they're putting their own successes at risk to bluff you out of yours. When someone collects enough successes to "win", they win, and everyone else suffers a loss in proportion to the amount of successes they lost in the match. I'm not sure how useful that would actually be in a game, but it's poker like in that setup. - [[User:Tarkisflux|TarkisFlux]] 22:37, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
