What's up with ARM ?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Due to a temporary issue, avatars are currently disabled. Don't worry, this is known and looked at!

  • piteglio wrote:

    Thordar Greybeard wrote:

    ...Absolutely no reason I can think of to change this except “change for the sake of change”.
    it is crucial that this notion is dispelled NOW.

    as a researcher working on autism, i know a thing or two on mentalising skills (or lack thereof).
    if you can't think of a reason to change this, it's because you haven't put yourself in the shoes of a total noob.
    do that, please. and if you're still having trouble seeing the reason, play a game with a total noob.
    then come back with a slightly more experienced point of view.
    i am sorry if this comes across as snarky, but if after 7 pages you stills see "absolutely no reason",
    it's not because we haven't tried hard enough to explain ourselves: it's on you.


    if you want high rolls to feel good, then let the Attacker roll for piercing.
    if you want Reactive players to do something, then use a X- roll.
    we have two options that help us win new players to the game.
    if you don't care about winning new players to the game,
    this discussion probably is going to be only a source of frustration to you.
    by wilfully missing the point of this rework, you surely act as a source of frustration yourself.
    I’m not wilfully missing the point. I just disagree with you. There is a difference.

    If it’s so hard for so called “noobs” to understand then how did anyone ever get into this hobby. Your attitude is exactly the “dumb it down” mindset that destroyed the old world in the first place. I don’t want a game that’s easier for “noobs” because reasons. We have to expose new players to the game not change the core mechanics.

    I’m voicing my opinion on this because I feel it’s essential not to have a bunch of yes men. My opinion is as valid as anyone else’s and I’ll post on this discussion regardless of frustration or whether or not you want me to.
  • by all means, Thordar, do all the posting you like!
    i only suggest that every now and then you do some reading too:

    if i were open to dumbing it down and changing core mechanics, i wouldn't have countered Alzam's question by stating that we do not want to reduce 2/6 to 3/4, but we decided to keep the granularity of the game intact (see post 142).

    if this were a a discussion between a bunch of yes men (by the way, talking about mentalising skills: do you realise you have offended people, here?), i say, if this were a discussion between a bunch of yes men we wouldn't have put together FIVE different proposals on how to deal with the ARM problem (summarised in my post 139). yes men don't come up with five different alternatives - they say yes to the first.

    and if you think that i suggested that your opinion is not valid, read post 139 again: your position is listed as one of the entries of the future poll, notably the last one. not really the best way to ignore somebody, right?

    so rest assured, your opinion has been voiced, understood, and listed for future polling by the yes men.
    can we ask you to try and show the same openmindedness and give the same attention to our ideas?
  • Perhaps if you first reply had been written in a nicer tone with an understanding demeanour I might have reacted differently, and possibly even bothered to list my own proposal. However the fact that you feel you have to defend your idea with such vehement agression suggests to me that although you say you are listening, you’re probably not.

    Anywho, as stated previously, I like rolling dice for saves. Any saves. Of any kind.

    Perhaps it would also be simpler for new players if we didn’t allow dispel rolls and just made the spells harder to cast?

    Simpler, but not as interactive.

    I understand there other proposals, Some of which I agree with, but my post is directly aimed at the idea of taking away armour saves from the passive player/and or having to roll low. Simple, easy. Not a dig at you, (even though you seemed to take my original comment as a personal attack,) I just don’t like the idea.
  • sorry if you felt i got aggressive - i felt you were dismissive of our concerns and of our hard work.
    there's a lot of passion going on on these forums, so people can react worse than they'd do in regular life.
    i'm sure this applies to you just as it applies to me : )

    my thinking is to make a poll where everybody can choose perhaps two of the proposed solutions, and use that as a guideline for rewriting texts to suggest to the Rules Team for consideration. if you don't like Piercing rolls (rolled by the attacker) and if you don't like Armour characteristic tests (successful on equal or lower), i think you still have other options, like TUB's three-way table, or WhammeWhamme 7-17 AP range.

    but if you have another idea that lets Reactive players roll high results to make successful Armour saves without including unintuitive calculations or extra tables, by all means, bring it on! this is exactly why i don't want to launch polls quite yet. there might be more alternatives in the air. i for one am very grateful for the three-way table TUB suggested yesterday - it's different from my way of thinking, but it might work just fine for "my" simplification purposes. let's keep the ideas flowing!