The other day I started a thread on the Wizards of the Coast Message boards looking for more melee weapons for my d20 Future/BESM d20 campaign. I got some really cool replies but at some point it degraded into an “Average Damage” argument. It seems pretty silly to me because I’m not 100% sure what actual use information like average damage has in a D&D or d20 Modern campaign.
It did give me an idea for a simulator that might be useful in adventure design. Run a few thousand simulated battles through to see who comes out on top most. Might be helpful in basically determining and tweaking the CR of an encounter. Granted it’d be what I called ‘stupid AI’ because it wouldn’t make any real tactical decisions but it could give a nice baseline at how difficult an encounter would be and might give some insight into what tactics a DM could use. I don’t know if I’ll bother to write it, but it might be fun.
Seems like geeks get into really pointless debates about math and stuff and never really take into account stuff like “Does this really matter?”, “Is this information actually relavent and useful?”, and “Can anything useful at all come of this debate?”
I don’t mean like, useful in real life because there’s a lot of highly academic stuff that has no application in real life whatsoever. There’s math stuff that’s really only useful to mathematicians and has no real world application except helping said mathematicians understand other concepts that might or might not have some use in real life. I’m talking about stuff that isn’t really useful to the subject at hand. I mean who CARES what a weapons average damage is because the only thing is proves is that bigger numbers usually mean more damage and smaller numbers mean more consistant damage. You don’t actually need a hundred hit sample to figure that out.
Oh well, geeks do this, stupid but true.