Tenacious-Techhunter wrote:Jeff, maybe you haven’t noticed, but I actually have been making my case; you just never bothered to read; that, or maybe you just don’t know your dice distributions.
I don't make it a practice to memorize distributions; when I need specifics, I can look them up. Generally, for gaming, I don't need specifics of distribution
. What I need is something that will serve the purpose of adjudicating the occasional task, but otherwise stands out of the way and lets me get on with the Story and the Drama. If you're at all familiar with GNS theory (I think it's called something else, now), I place Traveller
into the Simulationist/Narrativist camp - the rules are designed to more-or-less give results that look not-out-of-line for the Real World, and they're also designed not to get in the way of Telling The Story. Any system that I'm going to use is going to have to support that style of play at least as well as the core 2d6 mechanic that's persisted from CT through MT, T4, RTT (both editions), and T5.
Tenacious-Techhunter wrote:Any dice bigger than those would require drastic changes to the rules, and be a bit out-of-bounds without some canonists weighing in on what would be appropriate.
So now you're worried about the "canonists"? It was pointed out that the community is supporting the 2d6 that you've been arguing against without making a case.
Tenacious-Techhunter wrote:I’m not advocating for any specific change. But my assertion is, the expectation that people would be more comfortable with one type of dice or another is just plain not validated by any serious numbers posted anywhere, and when availability becomes “anything that can be printed”, designers of game systems like Traveller should either reconsider whether 2d6 is the most appropriate dice to be rolled for a game of Traveller, and build the next version of Traveller around those results, or should be prepared with some serious answers as to why, out of all the dice available, 2d6 with those particular faces are the best solution to what dice should be rolled for a Traveller game.
No. If you want the status quo
to change, you're the one that has to be prepared with some serious answers. And you've got to have those answers before the change will be made, or even considered. And you've got to have the support for those answers. The status quo works
. It isn't generally considered broken, so there's no perceived need to fix it - and where there has been a perceived need to fix it, we have - for example - things like the "Doing It My Way" section of Freelance Traveller
You haven't been making a case. If you want to make a case, a good way would be to follow the outline below:
- "I feel that a Traveller ruleset needs to accomplish «list of goals»"
- "The current 2d6 mechanism fails to accomplish «failed goals» because «reasons»"
- "I propose «mechanism, or class of mechanisms». This accomplishes «goals» because «reasons»"
Once you've made that basic case, people are going to challenge it. They'll disagree that «reason» equates to «failure of goal», or they'll disagree that «goal» needs to be accomplished at all, or they'll disagree that «mechanism» accomplishes «goal». And they'll make their case. You need to prepared to answer each of those challenges, or concede the point. And answering those challenges isn't just restating your thesis; you need to answer the specific objection to the challenge. This is what happens in a defense of a dissertation when you're standing for a doctoral-level degree. This is also what happens in debates (and I don't consider political "debates" on TV to be debates; they've become all about showmanship rather than substance. Go look at the local college or high school debate team instead). And however much you might not want to admit it, things like economics or convenience are going to be perceived of as factors, and you, as the one attempting to upset the status quo
, are not allowed to rule them out.
Tenacious-Techhunter wrote:I mean, in theory, we could be assigning different sided dice to different races, or to each stat for those races, or even come up with completely custom dice, complete with custom faces, per race. The options are literally endless now. Dice companies have built business models around buying dice blanks and laser cutting the faces with whatever a customer wants. So hell yeah, I think a little introspection is called for on what is best for Traveller as a game, and not merely as a set of published material.
What is best for Traveller
as a game is what sells enough to keep the publisher in business, and keeps the fan community from abandoning it. That may not be an answer that you like, but it's the reality.
Monopoly was never intended to be a "popular" game; its main predecessor was invented to make a sociopolitical point. As a game, it's crap. It takes too long to come to a conclusion, it has too many disparate themes, its rules aren't even internally consistent, it allows elimination of players one-by-one without speeding up the game... yeah, Monopoly desperately needs to be rethought from the ground up - and yet there's no question that it's one of the all-time best-selling board games.
Tenacious-Techhunter wrote:If you want to call that Trolling, well, I feel bad for you for not recognizing the age we live in, and the state of the industry.
The thing is, commerce is never state-of-the-art. Commerce is all about what's tried and proven to work.
State-of-the-art - also called "bleeding edge" (and there's a reason for that) - is always
a niche market, with the early adopters being more-or-less classifiable as "fanatics" on the subject. They're the ones that will put up with higher costs and lower reliability to make a point. And companies that cater to that niche generally don't cater only
to that niche; they have more conventional lines of business to support the company while the SotA stuff proves itself. When Honda came out with the first Insights, they didn't abandon their gas-engine vehicles; neither did Toyota when the learned from the mistakes of the original Insight and created the Prius. Hybrids are now fairly common - but still a fraction of the market for gas engines, for quite valid reasons. Out of all the automotive companies out there, only Tesla doesn't have a conventional-tech line - and their survival is by no means assured. Their market is an even smaller niche than the Prius commands; a Tesla ain't cheap, it doesn't quite have the range of a gas-engine or hybrid, and there isn't wide infrastructure to support it. They're an attempt at proof-of-concept - but how often does that turn out to mean "It can be done, but the economics don't work, yet"?
Just because the technology allows us to do something doesn't mean that it should be done. It may be unsustainable from a political, social, or economic point of view, or it may violate ethics, or it may just be that nobody cares enough to actually invest the time and effort.
I will spell it out, since you apparently haven't understood it from context: Advocating for change is not itself trolling. It is
implicitly saying "the status quo is not the best way to do it". Being told that you haven't made a case is implicitly asking "why is the status quo not the best way to do it?", and that, in turn, is implicitly telling you "we do not have a problem with the status quo". Ignoring that, and continuing to proclaim that the status quo is not the best way to do it, is what is trolling - you generate the perception that you are posting merely for the sake of arguing, or to get attention, not to generate honest debate. If you want to generate honest debate, make your case.