PDA

View Full Version : I Challenge You! OK now what?



DMfromTheAbyss
2008-07-04, 02:10 PM
I've noticed a fair number of rules discussions and build advice that leads to the situation where one must ask the disagreeing parties to "prove their point" usually this ends up being a challenge.

My problem is that said challenges are usually inconsistant, usually run by a biased DM whose already chosen sides and this pretty consistantly leads nowhere, robbing the discussion of any real usefulness beyond a name calling contest where both parties declare victory. I find this unacceptable as an observer, becouse in many cases I actually care to some degree who is really right.

Should we have some sort of forum wide "gentlegamers agreement" where we put down the basic rules of the "duel". If people just want to throw down in a statistical kind of way are there any universally accepted rules? Should we have some? What would they be?

When trying to make a particular claim (ex. X type of Monster with Y ability will always kill Z class) could there be standardized method for proving or disproving said statement?

Not that bringing this up will likely fix all of this, more a call to everyone to share ideas on HOW "WE" might fix this at some point in a possibly theoretical future, if it is indeed possible at all.

I have some suggestions to at least start the discussion.
1) Have Set rules in the beggining that both parties agree to.

2) Full disclosure of all relevant stats/equipment/powers involved.

3) Set probabilities (assume a fight without dice rolls?) for the conflict. After all I would personally challenge anyone to beat me if all my rolls are 20's (or lucky result for x-system equivilent) while all there's are 1's. If both players take average rolls (rolling a 10.5? or automatic 1-20 progression on rolls or whatever) what the outcome comes out to might actually mean something. A crit is something that is cool in a game for entertainment but when debating a build, A "he got lucky once" means very little...

4) Set number of rounds or rematches. This would also take randomness out of the discussion to a degree.

5) Perhaps some sort of standard progression of challenges (like a set number of CR identical encounters) over the course of a day (which is supposed to be the recommended 3-4 encounters per day in 3.5 I think?) This would be for a general this "works really well in normal play" or it "sucks" discussion.

6) some sort of standard environment(s) for challlenges to take place in that would best represent "normal play" Maybe a 30 by 30 room for dungeon crawl style games, a stock clearing in the woods for normal wilderness games, on the top of a plummeting space craft as it enters the atmosphere for those over the top games...

Anyone got any better ideas?

thugthrasher
2008-07-04, 04:20 PM
3) Set probabilities (assume a fight without dice rolls?) for the conflict. After all I would personally challenge anyone to beat me if all my rolls are 20's (or lucky result for x-system equivilent) while all there's are 1's. If both players take average rolls (rolling a 10.5? or automatic 1-20 progression on rolls or whatever) what the outcome comes out to might actually mean something. A crit is something that is cool in a game for entertainment but when debating a build, A "he got lucky once" means very little...



From what you said here, I would not reccomend both players taking the 'average' rolls because that would benefit certain builds more than most. The reason I say that is something that expands crit range or crit damage or an added effect upon crit doesn't give any advantages on an 'average' roll, but in play would give actual advantages. I do like the progression, or set die rolls, or even have both players just use the same die roll each round. For example, a 17 is rolled, both players may hit, but if one had a 'crit build' he might also crit, where the other player wouldn't. This would require some sort of tweaking, obviously, as both players would know the roll before they took their actions, but there must be some way around it. Any ideas?

Kurald Galain
2008-07-04, 06:29 PM
My problem is that said challenges are usually inconsistant, usually run by a biased DM whose already chosen sides and this pretty consistantly leads nowhere,

I've seen two kinds of challenge. The first kind works fine, the people just play along and show their point or build or whatever, and have fun. This one works fine without your suggestions.

The second kind is antagonistic, and the people involved spend more time arguing about what the rules should be, than actually playing anything. One particular forum member is infamous for attempting to place ridiculous restrictions on his opponent, and ask for more restrictions whenever he (partially) gets his way. This one doesn't work fine, not even with your suggestions.

So no, there is no standardized way of proving anything, in large part because there are people that aren't convinced by proof or facts. As Homer Simpson said, "Facts shmacts. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"