Jump to content

Quick Fix Game 2: Crushthroat's Beginnings


Recommended Posts

There's one thing I'm curious about. Why did Gambling give such a small reward? 1 coin wasn't really worth the risk, and it made Loaded Dice useless. I would recommend increasing the reward if we ever run this game again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one thing I'm curious about. Why did Gambling give such a small reward? 1 coin wasn't really worth the risk, and it made Loaded Dice useless. I would recommend increasing the reward if we ever run this game again.

 

I am of the same opinion with the low reward. I think it should have increased with the amount of people involved, even if it wasn't too impressive an increase (1 coin per two players, for instance), to simulate the fact that more money was in the pot. Currently, you lost money on average even if there was only one other person gambling. The gamble was not whether you won or lost, but whether anyone else thought that no-one would play.

 

I would disagree with the second point though. The Loaded Dice were far from useless - It was practically the only way to turn gambling to a decent profit. It increased your profit margin from 50% to 200%, and made you more likely to win as well. I certainly wish that I had realised quite how effective they were at first, even if I didn't really have a use for that money.

Edited by Wyrmhero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: loaded dice-

How so? They cost a minimum of 1 coin to buy, and then all they do is increase your odds of winning 1 coin back. Best case scenario is that you break even.

What happened in this case: Riitiidiikiir was able to bid for and win the Loaded Dice at 1 coin each time. Now, consider that using the Loaded Dice to gamble increases your odds of winning and waives the gambling costs. Winning also gets you three coins. Doing so, you can expect to win two coins, which outweighs the entry costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: loaded dice-

How so? They cost a minimum of 1 coin to buy, and then all they do is increase your odds of winning 1 coin back. Best case scenario is that you break even.

 

Best way to look at it is that you don't win 1 or lose 2, but you pay 2 and can win 3. The dice also contains the price for gambling already. This means you can pay 1 with the dice and get 3 back, so you make a net of 2 coins.

 

The tradeoff is that you need to spend two actions instead of one, since you need one to buy and one to use. You also may not manage to get the dice at all, which is another tradeoff, but if anyone's paying 2 for the dice, then that's decreased their benefit for doing so quite badly.

 

It's not a perfect way to get more money, but it's better than normal gambling if no-one else tries to get the dice too. Basically, the dice and gambling both only really work if no-one else goes for them :P

 

Edit: Kas ninja'd me while I was in another tab >>

Edited by Wyrmhero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see. The fact that the entry cost is waived wasn't clear to me from the rules.

It wasn't in the rules post itself. I think Meta left it somewhere in-thread as a rules clarification, same business as with the hook. I remember noting it because I had the Loaded Dice then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had increased the reward for gambling, then the prices for all of the items would've had to increase as well.

 

Imagine a scenario where the Mutineers get extremely lucky and they wind up killing the Quartermaster the first day and everyone gambles that day and a Mutineer wins. There were 15 players and you start with (effectively) 4 coins. If you up the prize for gambling by 1 coin per every two people, the Mutineer has 10 coins by the end of the first day. They will be able to buy the Axe on the 3rd day and everyone else will only have 4 coins to their name.

 

To combat against such a possibility, I would have to raise the price of the Axe, which would make it even harder to get without gambling and that's not fair either, as you shouldn't be required to gamble to stand a chance at buying the Axe.

 

Now, even if we take the Axe out of the equation, the person who wins at gambling would have a distinct advantage over everyone else when it came to bidding. They could easily win bids for an item for multiple turns in a row, thus keeping certain items out of the other faction's hand. Would you really want a Mutineer faction that could not only buy up the Grappling Hooks, but were also capable of always having a Buckler as well?

 

That's why all prices would have to increase and that would make it even harder for those that decide not to gamble to keep up. 

 

Gambling, as it is written now, still gives the player that wins a reward without making the swing so large that it becomes overpowering. One lucky roll of the dice should not pretty much determine the outcome of the game and, IMO, increasing the reward would do that. 

 

If I had increased the reward and something like that or similar happened, then people would be saying that Gambling was far too powerful and that the game came down to luck! 

Edited by Metacognition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much to say in terms of feedback for this one, I'm afraid, but as per usual practice, I'd like to thank everyone for the great game :) And thanks for GMing it, Meta!

Edit: No, there is something I do want to say. I at no point suspected King. That in itself was telling. I did not dare to trust him (not so easily) since prior trauma from MR1. However, that is not the same thing as suspecting him.

Edited by Kasimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...