Zero Damage Result

Skarg · 07-29-2019, 12:49 PM

Rolling zero damage has been asked about several times on this forum. So it's clear that there is a notable portion of players who balk at rolling zero damage, even more so on double or triple-damage results.

Of course, there are also players who don't feel it's a problem (including, apparently, the original designer, and I don't remember any Q&A during the original run about it), and of course the targets tend to enjoy the possibility of light weapons doing no damage even on a 3 on the to-hit roll.

The main counter-point I see is that it's using one of the lightest weapons in the game that creates a possibility for zero damage, and if you change that, then it over-represents the weaker weapons. Rolling a 3 or 4 doesn't take skill or anything but luck into account, but the damage a weapon does is a meaningful thing, and using a more potent weapon will remove the chance of zero damage.

Other points to consider:

* It's not really clear in the rules whether you're supposed to roll a multiplied number of dice (which is what we did), or roll the usual dice and then multiply. The latter may seem simpler and more intuitive, but multiplying the dice is actually specified in the only place I remember - in the Death Test 2 explanation of torch damage versus monsters who take double damage to fire - 1d-2 becomes 2d-4. Using more dice greatly reduces the odds or rolling zero damage (and also reduces the odds of rolling maximum damage). It also is pretty fun to roll and hear and see more dice rolling at once (assuming you have enough dice at hand).

* It probably makes sense to check in with your players to see how they feel about the issue.

07-29-2019, 12:49 PM	#4
Skarg Join Date: May 2015	Re: Zero Damage Result Rolling zero damage has been asked about several times on this forum. So it's clear that there is a notable portion of players who balk at rolling zero damage, even more so on double or triple-damage results. Of course, there are also players who don't feel it's a problem (including, apparently, the original designer, and I don't remember any Q&A during the original run about it), and of course the targets tend to enjoy the possibility of light weapons doing no damage even on a 3 on the to-hit roll. The main counter-point I see is that it's using one of the lightest weapons in the game that creates a possibility for zero damage, and if you change that, then it over-represents the weaker weapons. Rolling a 3 or 4 doesn't take skill or anything but luck into account, but the damage a weapon does is a meaningful thing, and using a more potent weapon will remove the chance of zero damage. Other points to consider: * It's not really clear in the rules whether you're supposed to roll a multiplied number of dice (which is what we did), or roll the usual dice and then multiply. The latter may seem simpler and more intuitive, but multiplying the dice is actually specified in the only place I remember - in the Death Test 2 explanation of torch damage versus monsters who take double damage to fire - 1d-2 becomes 2d-4. Using more dice greatly reduces the odds or rolling zero damage (and also reduces the odds of rolling maximum damage). It also is pretty fun to roll and hear and see more dice rolling at once (assuming you have enough dice at hand). * It probably makes sense to check in with your players to see how they feel about the issue.