We just started a D&D5 campaign with first level characters. I use 'aurora' which is great... BUT ...
This idea of not using the attributes for tests but modifying a D-20 roll with only a few points (depending on the attribute) is in my opinion such a bad idea! This way you make D&D a game of chance instead of a serious RPG in which you can actually make a difference with your attributes. There always is chance-factor in tabletop RPG's ... off course ... but the impact of what you roll with your D20 is way bigger (too big) then the small modifications you get from most of your attributes (except those few in which you specialize). And it doesn't seem to be changing very fast when you evolve too. So I don't understand why somebody thought this was a good idea. What am I missing here?
The role of dice isn't something unique to D&D 5th edition, and has been part of every edition.
Ability checks, attack rolls and saving throws only come into play when there is a reasonable chance of failure/success, not for every action. D&D only becomes a game of 'chance' when there's a chance of failure/success that can't be mitigated through planning or forethought. DMs don't (shouldn't really) call for dice rolls when doing trivial things like making camp, getting dressed or eating rations.
There's also the fact that the odds are fairly heavily stacked in favour of the pcs statistically. A medium difficulty task is DC 15. With a +3 bonus and +2 proficiency (which is level 1 territory), a character has 55% chance of success without taking any measures to gain an advantage.
In short, the roll of the dice doesn't make D&D a game of chance, it just attempts to simulate the non-determinate nature of attempting something you may fail at.
False dichotomy. Most RPGs rely on dice (other than, of course, "diceless" ones) and chance. If you think D&D 5e is too heavily reliant on lucky or unlucky die rolls, do not play Ironsworn, let me tell you...
Whether a game is an RPG or not does not hinge on whether there are die rolls. The die rolls just tell you whether you need to RP about success, or failure... hit, or miss... being injured, or escaping unscathed. You're still RPing about whatever circumstance has arisen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with both the previous posters. Chance has always been a part of D&D (and really most all board games and TTGs). Inasmuch as it can be, 5e is a very forgiving system, in that the game does not reward failure with instant death (at least, most of the time) or significant loss. Earlier editions, at least anecdotally from others on this site, were much harsher in terms of how failure impacted the PCs.
Statistically, your player will have a >50% chance of success for any skill they are proficient at in a "moderate" task (15 DC), even at tier 1, and simple proficiency increases basically add 10% to that chance per tier of play. ASIs and maxing ability scores can add another 5-20% on top of that, and other bonuses can be granted by magic items and class abilities. Finally, the governing factor of a DM (who may or may not be adjusting the encounter in real time behind the screen) can also make it to where the game is not fully "random" and possibly tilted quite heavily in the player's favor.
Ultimately even games like video games use RNG quite a bit, it's just that most of them hide those mechanics so the players don't see them. And in real life, even those masters of their craft fail at some point (musicians hit a sour note, golfers hit a sand trap, fishermen snap a line), and in the game, the dice represent those chances even for those with great skill in the task.
So you're not wrong, D&D is more a game of chance (maybe) than other RPGs. For example, many other games use things like 3d6, 2d6, 2d10, etc. to create a curve and make the game a little more predictable. D&D had a 3d6 variant back in the 3/3.5 days --- see https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm. Nothing official like that has been made for 5e, but people talk about it occasionally. It would require some adjustments to DCs, ACs, CRs, crit rules, etc.
I mean... it's kinda both? It's a role playing experience that gets broken up by games of chance, and the choices you make in character creation can increase or reduce your odds, but there's always a random element that's outside of your control, no matter how well you role play. It's something you basically have to go in wanting and accepting to get the most out of the game, but if the randomization doesn't appeal to you, there's alternatives.
I think it would be interesting to think of ways to replace the random dice rolls with skill challenges of some kind. Like... even osmething as simple as playing darts to determine success or failure. I don't think that would ever really catch on, since it slows everything down much more than a simple dice roll, but it's an interesting concept to explore.
So you're not wrong, D&D is more a game of chance (maybe) than other RPGs. For example, many other games use things like 3d6, 2d6, 2d10, etc. to create a curve and make the game a little more predictable. D&D had a 3d6 variant back in the 3/3.5 days --- see https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm. Nothing official like that has been made for 5e, but people talk about it occasionally. It would require some adjustments to DCs, ACs, CRs, crit rules, etc.
This is pretty much the crux of the issue. I need to point out that changing the flat probability of 1d20 for the more predictable curve of multiple (usually smaller) dice is often a red herring though. The curve makes outliers less likely - there's a higher chance of being close to the average result than of getting a very high or very low result - but if the adjudication system is some form of comparing to a target number to see if the result of the roll is higher (or lower, same difference) the shape of the curve doesn't necessarily matter all that much. Either option gives a chance of success, and whether you're more likely to be close to the target number or all roll results are equally likely doesn't change that chance of success. DC X on 3d6 has Y% chance of success. It doesn't matter to the outcome that you're less likely to get a 3 or an 18 than a 10 or 11 - all that matters is whether you get something higher than X. Such a system makes difficult DCs extra difficult and easy DCs extra easy, but that's all. Very swingy or not so swingy, all that really matters are the odds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We just started a D&D5 campaign with first level characters. I use 'aurora' which is great... BUT ...
This idea of not using the attributes for tests but modifying a D-20 roll with only a few points (depending on the attribute) is in my opinion such a bad idea! This way you make D&D a game of chance instead of a serious RPG in which you can actually make a difference with your attributes. There always is chance-factor in tabletop RPG's ... off course ... but the impact of what you roll with your D20 is way bigger (too big) then the small modifications you get from most of your attributes (except those few in which you specialize). And it doesn't seem to be changing very fast when you evolve too. So I don't understand why somebody thought this was a good idea. What am I missing here?
I agree completely. We had for a while a homebrewed system where all skill checks were made with a d10 instead of a d20. The modifier contributions were adjusted to compensate. Meaning if you had the stats + proficiency/expertise you were much better at the skill than someone with no training in the same skill.
I would contend that player choice is the main determinant of outcome in the game. While not perfect, the dice provide, as said above, a facsimile of randomness given predefined situations. Players can choose to take the time to stack the odds in their favor or not. I see lazy players put their characters in stupid positions and then blame a "bad" roll for getting their rear ends handed to them. "oh look, there is something spooky glowing out there in the woods, let's go immediately attack it...". Fighting a dragon aint like whacking away at a bugbear. A more refined probability spread isn't going to fix stupid.
I think this you are you're missing the point. If you just stepped from one encounter to the next, only asking for information during social encounters and then just using the mechanics permitted on your character sheet (swinging your sword) to win the combat encounters, then it becomes a game of chance.
But the point of going to war is to win the war, not to experience the war. As Sun Tsu said, "Win the war before you fight the battles." This is where the RP comes in.
Before you head into an encounter learn what you are going up against. Do this through RP. Obtain items that will improve your chances of success in battle. Do this through RP. Hire helpers, investigate alternate paths, purchase bows for everyone, or the best armor, or whatever. You are going to find that RP will magnify your effectiveness when it comes time to "show your steel."
This is where the DM is challenged to find the right balance to meet the needs of the party and still keep the campaign moving forward. Some groups don't want to RP, they just want to hack-N-slash. I would be kicked out (asked to leave) of those groups. Some groups won't leave a town until they have visited every shop looking for a deal or that item the DM planted for them to buy before they moved on. I don't think I would enjoy that either. But D&D can be a RP game if you want it to be, or it can be some kind of game of chance if you make it that by skipping the RP. I wouldn't enjoy the latter, and some folks have intimated that I spend too much emphasis on RP.
There is a balance, and it is different for each group. I hope you find an RP game of D&D that suits you.
We just started a D&D5 campaign with first level characters. I use 'aurora' which is great... BUT ...
This idea of not using the attributes for tests but modifying a D-20 roll with only a few points (depending on the attribute) is in my opinion such a bad idea! This way you make D&D a game of chance instead of a serious RPG in which you can actually make a difference with your attributes. There always is chance-factor in tabletop RPG's ... off course ... but the impact of what you roll with your D20 is way bigger (too big) then the small modifications you get from most of your attributes (except those few in which you specialize). And it doesn't seem to be changing very fast when you evolve too. So I don't understand why somebody thought this was a good idea. What am I missing here?
I agree completely. We had for a while a homebrewed system where all skill checks were made with a d10 instead of a d20. The modifier contributions were adjusted to compensate. Meaning if you had the stats + proficiency/expertise you were much better at the skill than someone with no training in the same skill.
DC 15 with a total modifier of +5 is 55% chance of success. With a total modifier of +0 that's 30%. +5 is lv 5 proficiency and a 14 in the applicable stat. Honestly, proficiency and a decent ability already make you much better than someone without proficiency and only middling ability as is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it may seem like pure chance at lower levels, but as you grow in level and both your proficiency bonus and stat modifiers increase, there's a definite impact on the rolls and it becomes less about chance and more about build. It just comes back to the inherent risks of low level play: your skills aren't a guarantee, your health is low, and your resources are limited. I think that's part of the fun, overcoming that initial hump. Though in 5e low-level play is still *far* less punishing than other editions.
If your looking at the mechanics, I can see your point of view. Though it is still a role playing game... So much depends on the DM, and yes, some people don't like that. My brother has similar sentiments, and prefers to play Warhammer.
First of all ... a lot of the reactions here aren't really to the (my) point. I never disputed the fact that RPG's must have a random factor, nor that an RPG should be about roleplaying, nor that the DM's effort is indeed imperative for a nice evening of roleplaying ...
I just wanted to point out that in D&D5 the impact of a roll with your D20 is way to important for the outcome of your actions and therefore it seems that it doesn't matter what you plan for ... or what you decide to do ... or how you resolve a conflict ... because all your plans can fall apart with 1 roll of a die. The random factor is just too big because you will only have a few points to add to your roll (except for the one or two attributes in which you excell). And this for most of your skills, saving throws and attributes.
D&D5 isn't my first game. I am 49 years old and played since childhood games like AD&D, Shadowrun, Toon, Slaine, GURPS, Star Wars (D6-system), Vampire, the Dark Eye ... and all of them (seems to me) have far better game mechanics then D&D5. I even prefer AD&D where you at least you can make a roll against the attribute itself, which I prefer. I just don't think that this change in game mecanics is an improvement.
And extra to this topic : I wonder what the motivation behind this big change in game mecanics is ... you see it more often how games that excist for a very long time suddenly completely change their game mecanics. The Dark Eye has done this too .. three times allready. Is this so that loyal gamers are obligated to buy all new manuals so they can keep on playing? Because all new adventures will have the new game mecanics! Is making money the motivation here? Or do the D&D5 creators truly believe that this change would be an improvement?
I always thought that the D20 gave too much of a random element. But then I thought about percentile based systems (e.g. CoC), and realised that the D20 is acting just like the % dice in those games.
In D&D, a +7 to hit vs AC 18 means you need to roll at least an 11 to hit, so in CoC this would equate to a 50% skill.
You could apply similar logic/percentages to any other dice-based game system to see how easier/harder each game system makes an attack possible.
And extra to this topic : I wonder what the motivation behind this big change in game mecanics is ... you see it more often how games that excist for a very long time suddenly completely change their game mecanics. The Dark Eye has done this too .. three times allready. Is this so that loyal gamers are obligated to buy all new manuals so they can keep on playing? Because all new adventures will have the new game mecanics! Is making money the motivation here? Or do the D&D5 creators truly believe that this change would be an improvement?
The d20 was the main resolution die in 2nd edition as well, but the hodgepodge of die sizes and tables from the TSR days was silly. WotC went with the D20 system to streamline that mess, and it's been this way for 21 years across three editions now.
And again, I think your notion of how things work is a bit off. It isn't about die sizes or rolls. Those can be anything. What it's about is odds. Chances of success are typically better in D&D than in CoC or the various Warhammer RPGs for instance, because most of the percentages tend to be hard to beat particularly early on. Shadowrun's system of getting hits from a dice pool isn't more reliable either - 11d6 for a hard test, to give an example, translates to almost the flip of a coin, just under 53% chance of success.
How big a part attributes (or whatever the equivalent is in a given system) play is really only meaningful for comparing characters within a game; if your concern is that plans can fall apart at the roll of a die none of those details are important. What concerns you are the odds, and in practice those tend to be ok in D&D. Checks of average difficulties - hitting a monster appropriate for your level that doesn't rely on AC in particular, casting a save spell against anything other than the target's best save, or anything the DM thinks should be doable tends to average towards a 55-60% chance of success. If you use your strengths or your opponent's weaknesses, or manage an approach to a problem that makes it easier, your chances will be better than that. That seems fine to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We just started a D&D5 campaign with first level characters. I use 'aurora' which is great... BUT ...
This idea of not using the attributes for tests but modifying a D-20 roll with only a few points (depending on the attribute) is in my opinion such a bad idea! This way you make D&D a game of chance instead of a serious RPG in which you can actually make a difference with your attributes. There always is chance-factor in tabletop RPG's ... off course ... but the impact of what you roll with your D20 is way bigger (too big) then the small modifications you get from most of your attributes (except those few in which you specialize). And it doesn't seem to be changing very fast when you evolve too. So I don't understand why somebody thought this was a good idea. What am I missing here?
The role of dice isn't something unique to D&D 5th edition, and has been part of every edition.
Ability checks, attack rolls and saving throws only come into play when there is a reasonable chance of failure/success, not for every action. D&D only becomes a game of 'chance' when there's a chance of failure/success that can't be mitigated through planning or forethought. DMs don't (shouldn't really) call for dice rolls when doing trivial things like making camp, getting dressed or eating rations.
There's also the fact that the odds are fairly heavily stacked in favour of the pcs statistically. A medium difficulty task is DC 15. With a +3 bonus and +2 proficiency (which is level 1 territory), a character has 55% chance of success without taking any measures to gain an advantage.
In short, the roll of the dice doesn't make D&D a game of chance, it just attempts to simulate the non-determinate nature of attempting something you may fail at.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
False dichotomy. Most RPGs rely on dice (other than, of course, "diceless" ones) and chance. If you think D&D 5e is too heavily reliant on lucky or unlucky die rolls, do not play Ironsworn, let me tell you...
Whether a game is an RPG or not does not hinge on whether there are die rolls. The die rolls just tell you whether you need to RP about success, or failure... hit, or miss... being injured, or escaping unscathed. You're still RPing about whatever circumstance has arisen.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with both the previous posters. Chance has always been a part of D&D (and really most all board games and TTGs). Inasmuch as it can be, 5e is a very forgiving system, in that the game does not reward failure with instant death (at least, most of the time) or significant loss. Earlier editions, at least anecdotally from others on this site, were much harsher in terms of how failure impacted the PCs.
Statistically, your player will have a >50% chance of success for any skill they are proficient at in a "moderate" task (15 DC), even at tier 1, and simple proficiency increases basically add 10% to that chance per tier of play. ASIs and maxing ability scores can add another 5-20% on top of that, and other bonuses can be granted by magic items and class abilities. Finally, the governing factor of a DM (who may or may not be adjusting the encounter in real time behind the screen) can also make it to where the game is not fully "random" and possibly tilted quite heavily in the player's favor.
Ultimately even games like video games use RNG quite a bit, it's just that most of them hide those mechanics so the players don't see them. And in real life, even those masters of their craft fail at some point (musicians hit a sour note, golfers hit a sand trap, fishermen snap a line), and in the game, the dice represent those chances even for those with great skill in the task.
Yep.
The d20 is very "swingy" as dice go, and that's both a common complaint about D&D and something considered "core" to the experience.
Furthermore, 5e has "bounded accuracy" which keeps the numbers in a range where the dice basically always matter. See https://olddungeonmaster.com/2014/08/30/bounded-accuracy/ for the basic idea, if maybe not all the details.
So you're not wrong, D&D is more a game of chance (maybe) than other RPGs. For example, many other games use things like 3d6, 2d6, 2d10, etc. to create a curve and make the game a little more predictable. D&D had a 3d6 variant back in the 3/3.5 days --- see https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm. Nothing official like that has been made for 5e, but people talk about it occasionally. It would require some adjustments to DCs, ACs, CRs, crit rules, etc.
I mean... it's kinda both? It's a role playing experience that gets broken up by games of chance, and the choices you make in character creation can increase or reduce your odds, but there's always a random element that's outside of your control, no matter how well you role play. It's something you basically have to go in wanting and accepting to get the most out of the game, but if the randomization doesn't appeal to you, there's alternatives.
I think it would be interesting to think of ways to replace the random dice rolls with skill challenges of some kind. Like... even osmething as simple as playing darts to determine success or failure. I don't think that would ever really catch on, since it slows everything down much more than a simple dice roll, but it's an interesting concept to explore.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
This is pretty much the crux of the issue. I need to point out that changing the flat probability of 1d20 for the more predictable curve of multiple (usually smaller) dice is often a red herring though. The curve makes outliers less likely - there's a higher chance of being close to the average result than of getting a very high or very low result - but if the adjudication system is some form of comparing to a target number to see if the result of the roll is higher (or lower, same difference) the shape of the curve doesn't necessarily matter all that much. Either option gives a chance of success, and whether you're more likely to be close to the target number or all roll results are equally likely doesn't change that chance of success. DC X on 3d6 has Y% chance of success. It doesn't matter to the outcome that you're less likely to get a 3 or an 18 than a 10 or 11 - all that matters is whether you get something higher than X. Such a system makes difficult DCs extra difficult and easy DCs extra easy, but that's all. Very swingy or not so swingy, all that really matters are the odds.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree completely. We had for a while a homebrewed system where all skill checks were made with a d10 instead of a d20. The modifier contributions were adjusted to compensate. Meaning if you had the stats + proficiency/expertise you were much better at the skill than someone with no training in the same skill.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I would contend that player choice is the main determinant of outcome in the game. While not perfect, the dice provide, as said above, a facsimile of randomness given predefined situations. Players can choose to take the time to stack the odds in their favor or not. I see lazy players put their characters in stupid positions and then blame a "bad" roll for getting their rear ends handed to them. "oh look, there is something spooky glowing out there in the woods, let's go immediately attack it...". Fighting a dragon aint like whacking away at a bugbear. A more refined probability spread isn't going to fix stupid.
I think this you are you're missing the point. If you just stepped from one encounter to the next, only asking for information during social encounters and then just using the mechanics permitted on your character sheet (swinging your sword) to win the combat encounters, then it becomes a game of chance.
But the point of going to war is to win the war, not to experience the war. As Sun Tsu said, "Win the war before you fight the battles." This is where the RP comes in.
Before you head into an encounter learn what you are going up against. Do this through RP. Obtain items that will improve your chances of success in battle. Do this through RP. Hire helpers, investigate alternate paths, purchase bows for everyone, or the best armor, or whatever. You are going to find that RP will magnify your effectiveness when it comes time to "show your steel."
This is where the DM is challenged to find the right balance to meet the needs of the party and still keep the campaign moving forward. Some groups don't want to RP, they just want to hack-N-slash. I would be kicked out (asked to leave) of those groups. Some groups won't leave a town until they have visited every shop looking for a deal or that item the DM planted for them to buy before they moved on. I don't think I would enjoy that either. But D&D can be a RP game if you want it to be, or it can be some kind of game of chance if you make it that by skipping the RP. I wouldn't enjoy the latter, and some folks have intimated that I spend too much emphasis on RP.
There is a balance, and it is different for each group. I hope you find an RP game of D&D that suits you.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
DC 15 with a total modifier of +5 is 55% chance of success. With a total modifier of +0 that's 30%. +5 is lv 5 proficiency and a 14 in the applicable stat. Honestly, proficiency and a decent ability already make you much better than someone without proficiency and only middling ability as is.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it may seem like pure chance at lower levels, but as you grow in level and both your proficiency bonus and stat modifiers increase, there's a definite impact on the rolls and it becomes less about chance and more about build. It just comes back to the inherent risks of low level play: your skills aren't a guarantee, your health is low, and your resources are limited. I think that's part of the fun, overcoming that initial hump. Though in 5e low-level play is still *far* less punishing than other editions.
The element of chance is what makes something a game, rather than just a story.
The amount of roleplay involved is dependent on the styles of the DM and the players involved.
If your looking at the mechanics, I can see your point of view. Though it is still a role playing game... So much depends on the DM, and yes, some people don't like that. My brother has similar sentiments, and prefers to play Warhammer.
It's an RPG that uses dice to resolve conflict.
First of all ... a lot of the reactions here aren't really to the (my) point. I never disputed the fact that RPG's must have a random factor, nor that an RPG should be about roleplaying, nor that the DM's effort is indeed imperative for a nice evening of roleplaying ...
I just wanted to point out that in D&D5 the impact of a roll with your D20 is way to important for the outcome of your actions and therefore it seems that it doesn't matter what you plan for ... or what you decide to do ... or how you resolve a conflict ... because all your plans can fall apart with 1 roll of a die. The random factor is just too big because you will only have a few points to add to your roll (except for the one or two attributes in which you excell). And this for most of your skills, saving throws and attributes.
D&D5 isn't my first game. I am 49 years old and played since childhood games like AD&D, Shadowrun, Toon, Slaine, GURPS, Star Wars (D6-system), Vampire, the Dark Eye ... and all of them (seems to me) have far better game mechanics then D&D5. I even prefer AD&D where you at least you can make a roll against the attribute itself, which I prefer. I just don't think that this change in game mecanics is an improvement.
And extra to this topic : I wonder what the motivation behind this big change in game mecanics is ... you see it more often how games that excist for a very long time suddenly completely change their game mecanics. The Dark Eye has done this too .. three times allready. Is this so that loyal gamers are obligated to buy all new manuals so they can keep on playing? Because all new adventures will have the new game mecanics! Is making money the motivation here? Or do the D&D5 creators truly believe that this change would be an improvement?
I always thought that the D20 gave too much of a random element. But then I thought about percentile based systems (e.g. CoC), and realised that the D20 is acting just like the % dice in those games.
In D&D, a +7 to hit vs AC 18 means you need to roll at least an 11 to hit, so in CoC this would equate to a 50% skill.
You could apply similar logic/percentages to any other dice-based game system to see how easier/harder each game system makes an attack possible.
The d20 was the main resolution die in 2nd edition as well, but the hodgepodge of die sizes and tables from the TSR days was silly. WotC went with the D20 system to streamline that mess, and it's been this way for 21 years across three editions now.
And again, I think your notion of how things work is a bit off. It isn't about die sizes or rolls. Those can be anything. What it's about is odds. Chances of success are typically better in D&D than in CoC or the various Warhammer RPGs for instance, because most of the percentages tend to be hard to beat particularly early on. Shadowrun's system of getting hits from a dice pool isn't more reliable either - 11d6 for a hard test, to give an example, translates to almost the flip of a coin, just under 53% chance of success.
How big a part attributes (or whatever the equivalent is in a given system) play is really only meaningful for comparing characters within a game; if your concern is that plans can fall apart at the roll of a die none of those details are important. What concerns you are the odds, and in practice those tend to be ok in D&D. Checks of average difficulties - hitting a monster appropriate for your level that doesn't rely on AC in particular, casting a save spell against anything other than the target's best save, or anything the DM thinks should be doable tends to average towards a 55-60% chance of success. If you use your strengths or your opponent's weaknesses, or manage an approach to a problem that makes it easier, your chances will be better than that. That seems fine to me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].