What the hell is he on about? - you may ask, but I just don't like rules with saving throws. My main gripe is that they usually don't tell you why they included a saving throw mechanism in the rule mechanics. Now I can come up with post event rationalisations for most things, and there are reasons why saving throws might be appropriate, but I often think they've just been included due to the limitations of using the d6.
So you can probably justif saving throws where they represent armour or cover, you could also include them as a way of representing defending in a melee combat but including them in 18th or 19th Century rules as part of a fire combat mechanism just mystifies me. I suppose you could argue it does give the inactive player something to do but the net result is pretty damned frustrating for the active player and that's not a good result (paeticularly when the inactive player doesn't know why he's actually rolling any dice!)
However, being a deeply flawed and cynical individual I think it's probably more to do with the fact that the people writing the rules are used to the saving throw mechanic as opposed to there being any actual logic behind it. Or if it was really thought about it was just to address the way probability works when modifying d6 results - if that's the reason then use a die with more sides would be a better option IMHO!
Anyway, there it is and so now you know why (a) none of the rules I write has a saving throw mechanic (although if I did ever use one I would tell people what it was intended to represent!) and (b) why none of my favourite rules has it either. Alternatively I could just be too damn picky or just p,ain old bonkers - I'll leave you to figure that out...
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad