Quote from: Cranewings;426284If you didn't care what anyone else thinks, you wouldn't bother describing anything about your character.

You see, that's just flat out wrong. You come to this wrong conclusion by assuming I value what you value. That basic assumption is incorrect.  

QuoteTelling people that you can prove with dice that he is an unreliable striker because he rolls 2d6 instead of 1d6+4 or whatever is so trivial, no one I've ever met would care or remember. You could automatically deal 7 very time and no one would care. If you said, "he may technically deal 7 every time, but he seems wild and crazy when he fights" then people will picture a wild guy. Modeling it with your damage dice is too trivial to matter to anyone I've ever met in real life.

Then you should play a game where you just say "I fight the dragon and beat him, but have a tough time doing it, so I'm all scuffed up and bloody" rather than bothering to play it out. They can all picture it, right? That's all that matters.

I don't *want* to prove with dice that my character is an unreliable striker. It would not ever even occur to me as a possibility. You are approaching roleplaying in such a fundamentally different way than I am that it is like we are alien creatures. You are - in effect - trying to tell me that I tap my lips when I ponder because my snershum juville is horking, when I have no snershum juville, and thus not only can't I hork, I have no concept of what horking is.

-clash

Fair enough. I'm afraid I don't get it.

Quote from: Cranewings;426358Fair enough. I'm afraid I don't get it.

I'm wondering if this is somehow related to the group you're playing with. The big picture as far as your gaming is concerned, and the problems you are running into with your group. I'm not saying that'd be all your fault or whatnot. Just wondering if this is all interconnected somehow, and I'm not seeing the pattern yet. (trying to be helpful, here)

Quote from: Cranewings;426358Fair enough. I'm afraid I don't get it.

I will attempt to explain:

Let us take Mistwell's example of the "reckless dwarf barbarian with the great axe", which I am playing. The character is reckless, not calculating. He would prefer the weapon with the greatest *potential* damage that he could handle - not because it is optimal, not because doing so would show the other players that I - the player - am playing a reckless character, but because it is an expression of his character. *He* would prefer that 2d6 weapon over the 1d6+4 weapon. Letting him have this weapon would not cripple him - the difference is minor - so I, the player, choose that weapon for him.

James Bond would never drive a Volvo, no matter that it is very safe, because he's James Fucking Bond! He'd drive that Aston Martin because it's fast, flashy, and sexy. Bond values those characteristics over safe, dependable, and tough, the virtues of a Volvo.

Similarly, the reckless dwarf barbarian cherishes the recklessness of the 2d6 weapon over the dependability of the 1d6+4 weapon. It expresses his character. Similarly, he'd prefer armor that gave him freedom and mobility over armor that protected better at the cost of slowing him down. Again, an expression of character. He'd gamble his gold away on a single throw of teh dice because he is reckless. The thrill of the risk more than compensates for the safety of living defensively.

This has nothing to do with what other players think of me as a player. That is something I care nothing about. That is not a goal, or even a concern. It has to do with getting into the head of the character, and playing him from the inside out. By doing this, it helps my my imagination to allow me to see things through his eyes, and experience the world through his senses. That is, ultimately, my goal.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;426391I will attempt to explain:

Let us take Mistwell's example of the "reckless dwarf barbarian with the great axe", which I am playing. The character is reckless, not calculating. He would prefer the weapon with the greatest *potential* damage that he could handle - not because it is optimal, not because doing so would show the other players that I - the player - am playing a reckless character, but because it is an expression of his character. *He* would prefer that 2d6 weapon over the 1d6+4 weapon. Letting him have this weapon would not cripple him - the difference is minor - so I, the player, choose that weapon for him.

James Bond would never drive a Volvo, no matter that it is very safe, because he's James Fucking Bond! He'd drive that Aston Martin because it's fast, flashy, and sexy. Bond values those characteristics over safe, dependable, and tough, the virtues of a Volvo.

Similarly, the reckless dwarf barbarian cherishes the recklessness of the 2d6 weapon over the dependability of the 1d6+4 weapon. It expresses his character. Similarly, he'd prefer armor that gave him freedom and mobility over armor that protected better at the cost of slowing him down. Again, an expression of character. He'd gamble his gold away on a single throw of teh dice because he is reckless. The thrill of the risk more than compensates for the safety of living defensively.

This has nothing to do with what other players think of me as a player. That is something I care nothing about. That is not a goal, or even a concern. It has to do with getting into the head of the character, and playing him from the inside out. By doing this, it helps my my imagination to allow me to see things through his eyes, and experience the world through his senses. That is, ultimately, my goal.

-clash

:hatsoff:
I allways choose weapons that mirror my (characters) persona...

Quote from: Benoist;426377I'm wondering if this is somehow related to the group you're playing with. The big picture as far as your gaming is concerned, and the problems you are running into with your group. I'm not saying that'd be all your fault or whatnot. Just wondering if this is all interconnected somehow, and I'm not seeing the pattern yet. (trying to be helpful, here)

Could be. I'm not sure. (; On a side note, I know it isn't my fault at all because I ran a 8 month long game with a stable group last year and didn't have any problems. These friends of mine are just crazy.

The guy playing the party leader was in a funk monday night when I picked him up. He was having some kind of moody depression. I told him on the way, "you know this could be the last game given what you are fighting so you better put on your fucking try-hards and win because everyone needs your genius." Surprisingly enough, they actually won the fight without any casualties. I was pretty shocked.

Flying Mice, I get ya. I wouldn't have ever thought of it that way.

I get pretty into character myself, but it doesn't have anything to do really with his attributes. I've always thought of getting into character as something individuals do because they are inclined to.

In my experience, the same people that actually get into character do no matter what the system or what's on their sheet. The other people just don't.

Quote from: Cranewings;426533Could be. I'm not sure. (; On a side note, I know it isn't my fault at all because I ran a 8 month long game with a stable group last year and didn't have any problems. These friends of mine are just crazy.

Yeah, like I said: I'm not trying to put the blame on you somehow. Just wondering about the paradigm in your game group, because that's twice now I'm really puzzled about them, and I would just love to play with these guys just to see if I could notice something somehow that I did not notice through your descriptions on the board.

Quote from: Cranewings;426533The guy playing the party leader was in a funk monday night when I picked him up. He was having some kind of moody depression. I told him on the way, "you know this could be the last game given what you are fighting so you better put on your fucking try-hards and win because everyone needs your genius." Surprisingly enough, they actually won the fight without any casualties. I was pretty shocked.

HA! Awesome! A win for the group, in many senses of the term!

Math hurts my brain.

RPGpundit

Quote from: Spinachcat;426011Is it 1D6+3 or 1D6+4?   Or it impossible to balance without some additional non-damage aspect to the weapon?

1d6+3.5 is mathematically the same as 2d6, but since you can't really do that the 1d6+4 is probably your best choice.

Quote from: finarvyn;4266751d6+3.5 is mathematically the same as 2d6, but since you can't really do that the 1d6+4 is probably your best choice.

It's stunning how many people think all there is to a distribution is the mean.

Quote from: Doom;426716It's stunning how many people think all there is to a distribution is the mean.

I'm kind of surprised as well. It's like my earlier point of the consistency vs. randomness, the psychological aspect of tactics and how they relate to planning, expectations and so on flew completely over some people's heads.

Quote from: finarvyn;4266751d6+3.5 is mathematically the same as 2d6, but since you can't really do that the 1d6+4 is probably your best choice.

Or can't you???

Going the other way 1d6+3, rerolling any 1s gives an average value of exactly 7.
(all values possible on the d6: 2,3,4,5,6 = 20, /5 possible results = average value of 4)

If you do that then the only difference becomes the distribution, no change in average damage between the d6+3 and the 2d6 at all.

Hey, that's a clever way to get around the whole "add a 0.5" silliness.

Next to a discussion about police riding unicorns, this is probably the 2nd best fun-but-pointless gaming board discussion I've seen for 2010.

Wonder who (in rpg gaming) pays attention to kurtosis and skewness.