Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Committed Hero" data-source="post: 3683062" data-attributes="member: 15341">I'm going on the record in favor of more die rolling, for a couple reasons.First, to consider the Stealth check you mentioned - what if the PCs are the guards?&nbsp; Who rolls the check?&nbsp; If it's the GM, will the players be happy having the resolution out of their hands?&nbsp; Or being surprised when an enemy gets a coup de grace attempt?Or, a better question - if the PCs have no way to influence a check, why roll at all check?&nbsp; Can't the GM just decide who wins based on how the story needs to go?&nbsp; Is that fair?One easy solution to the multiple roll problem is having the DCs incorporate the NPCs roll beforehand.&nbsp; Or represent an NPC roll by checking off a number between 1 and 20, representing 20 rolls.&nbsp; If she wants the party to win a roll, she'll use the highest failing roll, and vice-versa.&nbsp; The trouble is, at some point a series of easy victories may end up hurting the party when it counts....Secondly, you make the skill check an all-or-nothing proposition, when it might not have to be.&nbsp; One crucial thing that's ignored in skill checks is time.&nbsp; As has been mentioned in this thread, a failure could only mean a check takes longer.&nbsp; The key is making this loss count.&nbsp; In an open ended adventure, this is difficult.&nbsp; If the party has a definite time limit, however, it could hurt.&nbsp; I think it becomes a question of how to frame the extra time.Another option is to give the party chances to spend an Action point on a GES:&nbsp; A Guaranteed Expository Success.&nbsp; As long as they are in the preliminary stages of an adventure, they can avoid the kinds of failure you are worrying about.Lastly, sometimes the exposition can be the solder that welds a series of unrelated scenarios into a campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Committed Hero, post: 3683062, member: 15341"] I'm going on the record in favor of more die rolling, for a couple reasons. First, to consider the Stealth check you mentioned - what if the PCs are the guards? Who rolls the check? If it's the GM, will the players be happy having the resolution out of their hands? Or being surprised when an enemy gets a coup de grace attempt? Or, a better question - if the PCs have no way to influence a check, why roll at all check? Can't the GM just decide who wins based on how the story needs to go? Is that fair? One easy solution to the multiple roll problem is having the DCs incorporate the NPCs roll beforehand. Or represent an NPC roll by checking off a number between 1 and 20, representing 20 rolls. If she wants the party to win a roll, she'll use the highest failing roll, and vice-versa. The trouble is, at some point a series of easy victories may end up hurting the party when it counts.... Secondly, you make the skill check an all-or-nothing proposition, when it might not have to be. One crucial thing that's ignored in skill checks is time. As has been mentioned in this thread, a failure could only mean a check takes longer. The key is making this loss count. In an open ended adventure, this is difficult. If the party has a definite time limit, however, it could hurt. I think it becomes a question of how to frame the extra time. Another option is to give the party chances to spend an Action point on a GES: A Guaranteed Expository Success. As long as they are in the preliminary stages of an adventure, they can avoid the kinds of failure you are worrying about. Lastly, sometimes the exposition can be the solder that welds a series of unrelated scenarios into a campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification