3 ms·

The problem is accounting for the 1-25, 1-125, 1-625 possibilities that are still legal, but you can’t meaningfully do anything about (and a 1-625 crit sequence

by setr 5y ago

The problem is accounting for the 1-25, 1-125, 1-625 possibilities that are still legal, but you can’t meaningfully do anything about (and a 1-625 crit sequence trivializes any boss fight, and a 1-625 miss sequence makes a trivial enemy impossibly powerful). It really amounts to a 1-625 chance that combat just breaks down altogether. Another alternative is you have so many rolls individual rolls don’t matter (e.g. mass combat), or you have such cheap restarts / difficulty that a 1-625 game breakage doesn’t matter (ADnD, roguelikes). Tail risk is probably a the least interesting type of risk, unless the game is specifically designed for it (it runs long enough that encountering a tail risk is an expected proposition)

lmm 5y ago
Hmm, IMO tail risks are the most interesting type of risk - just handling a certain amount of normal variance is uninteresting, it's the tails that are memorable and create stories.
- setr 5y ago
  Right, but the game needs to actually build with it in mind. In a CRPG, death is basically an illegal operation — your only option is to save scum or reset the campaign (eg on TPK. On single death, you can probably resurrect), so the tail risk of instant-death is untenable. In ADnD and roguelikes, death is a matter of course, so tail risk is a natural function of the game — and they offer various mitigation strategies (e.g. campaigns don’t require anything to actually be dealt with — ADnD just says you need to get gold, by any means necessary. Rogue says the same, but for the necklace. So tail risk is truly an opt-in). Boss fights are optional and rewarding, but not required, and often many exist, so trivializing one by a 1-625 crit sequence isn’t nearly as damaging as in, say, baldur’s gate. In grand strategies, there’s enough rolls, and its not sufficiently damaging, that it’s just part of your day-to-day. The same is true of tail risk running a distributed cluster. In risk, tail risk means a group of 5 can knock down your group of 30 — which voids any strategy whatsoever. There’s not mitigation path, and there’s not much alternative except to say “such is as the gods have deigned”, as they penetrate a key area with basically nothing. You could describe it like wesnoth “good strategy, bad luck”, or you could describe it as a bad mechanic (not to comment on wesnoth’s usage). Ultimately, it depends on whether you actually have the tools to do something about it, or a design to convince the user accept it outright. But without either, you just have bullshit.

by setr 5y ago

lmm 5y ago

Hmm, IMO tail risks are the most interesting type of risk - just handling a certain amount of normal variance is uninteresting, it's the tails that are memorable and create stories.

setr 5y ago
Right, but the game needs to actually build with it in mind. In a CRPG, death is basically an illegal operation — your only option is to save scum or reset the campaign (eg on TPK. On single death, you can probably resurrect), so the tail risk of instant-death is untenable. In ADnD and roguelikes, death is a matter of course, so tail risk is a natural function of the game — and they offer various mitigation strategies (e.g. campaigns don’t require anything to actually be dealt with — ADnD just says you need to get gold, by any means necessary. Rogue says the same, but for the necklace. So tail risk is truly an opt-in). Boss fights are optional and rewarding, but not required, and often many exist, so trivializing one by a 1-625 crit sequence isn’t nearly as damaging as in, say, baldur’s gate. In grand strategies, there’s enough rolls, and its not sufficiently damaging, that it’s just part of your day-to-day. The same is true of tail risk running a distributed cluster. In risk, tail risk means a group of 5 can knock down your group of 30 — which voids any strategy whatsoever. There’s not mitigation path, and there’s not much alternative except to say “such is as the gods have deigned”, as they penetrate a key area with basically nothing. You could describe it like wesnoth “good strategy, bad luck”, or you could describe it as a bad mechanic (not to comment on wesnoth’s usage). Ultimately, it depends on whether you actually have the tools to do something about it, or a design to convince the user accept it outright. But without either, you just have bullshit.