Quote from: "Korvanus" post=2255

While I appreciate your detailed analysis Nihil, anytime you have to preface a statement with I am not intending to be rude generally means you are about to be rude. Perhaps you need to take a step back and reevaluate your approach to talking to people, especially if you are this interested in bring more people to the game. There were one too many condescending statements in there for my tastes.

I very much don't want a flame war, Korvanus. I am sorry if you felt I was rude.

However, telling someone that he needs to reevaluate his approach to talking to people is an attack against the man, i.e. an argumentum ad hominem. I view that as far more offensive than anything I directed at you, thus far, as I never attacked you on a personal level, and, despite the provocation, I will continue to not attack your person, because I do not know you, and I won't claim to try.

It is possible to alert a reader that one's words could be viewed as offensive, and still mean no offense.  The alert is there to say "remove your personal attitude from the equation for a moment, and read these next words objectively and without emotional attachment." I'm sorry if that message was somehow lost, or if I didn't execute that message with enough fervor.

Like I said before...I don't want a flame war. These forums are meant to be a friendly place, so while I cannot apologize for my ultimate message, I can apologize for being so blunt about it, I suppose. I hope, as others have also reflected, that you are able to get over your distaste for swingy dice, and learn that this game is a rich addition to the gaming hobby.

-nihil

You were being a jerk. You knew that post sounded the way it did from your own preface. Everyone else found a way to communicate their feelings without lines like:

I hate to be the guy who says "look elsewhere for your fun" because, as I previously said, I very much want to do all possible to grow this game, but I also have to accept facts, as should you.

That's being rude. There's no justification for it. You also don't get to lecture anyone about needing to be "without emotional attachment" and then react to Korvanus' very, very polite post to reign it in a bit with talk about "attacks on the man" and flame wars and how he has somehow offended you in the same breath. As you have aptly demonstrated with your response, we're people. Relax and treat people with more respect in the future, especially considering the subject at hand. Fun as it is, this is just a game we're talking about here. I really hope you wouldn't say that to someone's face. I now have to convince one of my friends, who was keen on some organized play, after seeing this thread that no one would treat her like that over a simple question in real life.

Korvanus is just looking to see if others have been down this road with some variant rules that worked for them. To that end, Korvanus, in addition to what Rumsey suggested you can try the following. Instead of rolling for damage treat the dice rolled as the amount of non-critical damage the attack/spell does. No bookkeeping, pretty close to the average probability, and armor is still a factor. This is going to turn high armor creatures into juggernauts, however, so I'd cut the armor of every creature in half and round down. The efficacy of the Bull's Endurance, Bear's Strength, and Rhino Hide enchantments are going to change significantly so you need to keep an eye on these and effects like them. I have not tested this variant but I did give it some serious thought once when this topic came up in conversation

I will also chime in with my encouragement to tough it out with the dice. To that end I suggest you put together a spellbook where the plan for victory minimizes the dice as much as possible. I have a Warlock deck built around cards like Malacoda, Ghoul Rot, Idol of Pestilence, etc. that deal predictable amounts of damage. Then any dice you roll you can look at as icing on the cake!