in freeform PvP details matter, A LOT. For example, the fight I mentioned (and now that I think of it it was the five foot tall character who threw the sword), had that player not said "it was exactly this far above my head" then there would've been leeway for the seven foot character's player to assume that it would go over his head. But because the other player specifically stated the height, and he didn't pay attention to that in relation to his height and therefore assumed it would go over his head so he didn't take action to avoid. He got his head cut off.

in a system you can get away with less details because it's a system. In freeform, details can be the life or death of you.

If you only knew how many system fights I have won because of details like that...

Well, no way you could know that, but still.

Anyway, there are whole systems that depend on details. Do we really need to turn the thread into this discussion? Personally, I'd rather avoid it.

Maths are another matter

.

I'm a mathematician at heart. Do not challenge me like that. The odds of rolling 12 on 2d6 are the same no matter how often you roll them (1/36), because each roll is NOT influenced by the last. Compound probability is a fallacy.

I'm not a mathematician - not required neither for my hobbies, nor for my job - but you're talking of Gambler's fallacy, I assume? AFAIK, it's talking about assuming that some result must be "due" simply because what has previously happened departs from what would be expected on average or over the long term. And I'm talking about what is more likely to happen on average, given long-term repetitions.

One dieroll out of 36 is more likely to end up 12, somewhere down the line. It's not simulated by making the roll of 12 itself more likely, but it's achieved by making rolling a 12 more likely in the roll of 2d6, 2d6, 2d6, 2d6, 2d6, for example. The chance to roll 12 on any of them is 1/36, as you correctly pointed out. The chance of your gun not jamming is, therefore, (100-2.7778)% or 35 out of 36 (in the game you suggested). That's roughly a 97.2% chance.

The chance of it not jamming on the 5th roll, as in my example, is 52521875 out of 60466176, or very roughly, 86.9%. The odds of that gun jamming just went from 2.8% to 13.1%, which is "way more likely" in my book. (I really hope these are the odds for automatic fire, BTW. Otherwise, it's laughable. And it also means a 3d6 or d100 system would give a way better distribution even in this case, but whatever).

If you wanted to avoid that in order to allow shooting short bursts for a length of time, you could allow the odds of jamming to be calculated by rolling an additional die in different colour. It doesn't affect your shooting odds, but even when rolling a 12, your gun only jams if the other die is also 5 or 6 (for a short burst) or a natural 6 (for single shots). This can go down if you didn't keep the weapon clean, per GM judgement, so 4-6 or 5-6 on the "confirmation die" if you shoot a muddy gun.

Everyone who gambles believes that "It must come up eventually", but this is simply not true. There is no goddess of chance blowing on the dice to influence them. As long as the dice are fair and unbiased, there is always a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6. By your argument of compound probability, it should logically be almost impossible to roll 12, because having rolled a 6 it is unlikely you would roll another!

No, by my argument the odds of rolling 12 is exactly 1 out of 36. It's less likely than rolling a single 6 on one die, and this is, in turn, less likely than having to roll a single 6 on 2d6. But the

**odds** of rolling

**at least one** 6 increase with the number of dice, given fair and unbiased dice.

However, here, I agree with you.

I also agree here too. Which is why I replied as i did. It's not about system v system or system v freeform. It's about PvP! And just as some systems will cover jamming and others won't so some freeform players sill have a weapon jam when others won't even think of it!

Well, we agree on the important parts, then. If you wish, we can take the maths discussion - provided it's not cleared now - on PMs.

I mentioned you by name, my friend, because you specifically expressed a dislike of extremely detailed combat scenes, where I was talking about getting detail into combat scenes!

*snigger*

Ah, that - remember, I didn't express dislike of detail. I expressed dislike of unnecessary details that serve no purpose other than wordcount (or worse, gets the details wrong).

If it does serve a purpose, as in Ember Star's example, it's not unnecessary by definition.