Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RenleyRenfield" data-source="post: 9632830" data-attributes="member: 7044197">Ok that's fair.&nbsp;&nbsp; And in a single attempt, I agree that its reasonable. But its still the worst or least interesting&nbsp; response to a roll.&nbsp; And it becomes very un-fun when you get multiples in a row - the bad nature of pass/fail become tedium and frustration.&nbsp;&nbsp; You have 4 players, and all 4 fail their roll, and all 4 result in nothing happening... ung... now everyone is just trying to get past this very no-fun situation of bad dice rolls.&nbsp; This happens often as is discussed many places.&nbsp;&nbsp; And even a single player can fail 3 , 4 times in a row... 3 or 4 times of nothing...But getting rid of 'nothing happens' result, you entirely, 100% eliminate a known frustration in gaming.&nbsp;&nbsp; And you lose nothing from doing so.&nbsp; The characters still struggle, there are still stakes, tragedy still happens.&nbsp; Its just that 'nothing' never happens.Retrying the same roll over and over is action economy at its worst, and in general never a fun exercise...I am glad you brought this up.&nbsp; And I think the hard and fast rule of 'no re-tries' is fine.&nbsp; Especially when t applies to the group ( Joe already tried to pick the lock, he failed the lock cant be picked, all of you need to find another way).&nbsp; If its truly a one-time roll = then I am ok with this. The consequence of a single roll eliminating a task option is cool.Most all games allow for retires.&nbsp; Either by the same character (given more or less need to create new opportunity) or by every other player rolling to try. Honestly, I can't stand it when a GM says &quot;Roll Perception&quot; to one player, and when they fail - every other player at the table chimes in &quot;I will try too&quot; ... ung... no.&nbsp; If I said &quot;take 4 tries at the roll, I would have&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp; Now we are just 'roll bashing' and that's very lame design and no fun play...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RenleyRenfield, post: 9632830, member: 7044197"] Ok that's fair. And in a single attempt, I agree that its reasonable. But its still the worst or least interesting response to a roll. And it becomes very un-fun when you get multiples in a row - the bad nature of pass/fail become tedium and frustration. [B]You have 4 players, and all 4 fail their roll, and all 4 result in nothing happening[/B]... ung... now everyone is just trying to get past this very no-fun situation of bad dice rolls. This happens often as is discussed many places. And even a single player can fail 3 , 4 times in a row... 3 or 4 times of nothing... But getting rid of 'nothing happens' result, you entirely, 100% eliminate a known frustration in gaming. And you lose nothing from doing so. The characters still struggle, there are still stakes, tragedy still happens. Its just that 'nothing' never happens. Retrying the same [I]roll over and over[/I] [I]is action economy at its worst[/I], and in general never a fun exercise... I am glad you brought this up. And I think the hard and fast rule of 'no re-tries' is fine. Especially when t applies to the group ( Joe already tried to pick the lock, he failed the lock cant be picked, all of you need to find another way). [B]If its truly a one-time roll = then I am ok with this.[/B] The consequence of a single roll eliminating a task option is cool. Most all games allow for retires. Either by the same character (given more or less need to create new opportunity) or by every other player rolling to try. Honestly, I can't stand it when a GM says "Roll Perception" to one player, and when they fail - every other player at the table chimes in "I will try too" ... ung... no. If I said "take 4 tries at the roll, I would have". Now we are just 'roll bashing' and that's very lame design and no fun play... [/QUOTE]

Verification