Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Look at it another way: instead of having you roll a dozen times this just bundles all those rolls into one. And yes, very intentionally, this in general reduces the odds of success. I'm quite happy with that.Tomato, tomahto. If I rolled less than I could have, the dice are indicating that I didn’t do as well as I could have. You’re free to rule that I can’t roll again, but it’s just factually incorrect to say it was my character’s best effort
The game decides this, not me. Or am I unusual in saying that rolls once made are binding?Only if you as DM decide that it is. And that would be a decision I would take issue with.
Well, yes I can, in that when I call for a roll when there is or seems to be no pressure I'm assuming they'll take however long they like before they get bored; and the roll represents the sum best effort during all that.You can’t just brush over that “if given long enough” bit like it isn’t extremely significant.
Thus taking away from the PCs the option of giving up after 15 minutes of trying and deciding to look for plan B.Adventurers should rarely if ever have the luxury of unlimited time and no other external pressure to do something. But in the rare cases that they do, sure, they should -eventually- be able to do it.
And what sets those check DCs? That's right, the obstacle itself.I figured you wouldn’t see it that way. Personally, I don’t see any benefit to doing it your way. Checks have DCs, obstacles in the game world don’t.
The setting is constant and consistent, and the mechanics (in this case, the DCs) reflect that. The conditions, PCs, etc. are variable, and the roll modifiers reflect that. Seems simple enough; and gives the players a more grounded setting to work with.
Not at all. The pattern of play doesn't stop: the players describe what they want to try (not do, but try - a very big difference wich rulebook authors always seem to miss) -> [maybe there's a check or other mechanical intervention, if needed] -> the DM describes the results and-or what happens -> repeat from start.Of course they’re not the same thing. Story progress is not the thing I’m concerned with. Whatever happens in play is the story. When I say it stalls the gameplay I mean it causes the pattern of play (DM describes environment -> players describe what they want to do -> DM describes the results, calling for a check to resolve uncertainty in the results if necessary -> repeat from step 1) to break down or come to a halt.
The only difference in this situation is that for a while the DM's descriptions might consist of "No change, nothing happens". This does not break the loop.
I'm guessing you don't like puzzles or riddles in the game either, then?I’m not talking about frustration, I’m talking about boredom. If my players regularly had to spend hours of real-life time just trying to think of novel ways to open a door, they would be fully justified in never wanting to participate in that activity again (I hesitate to say “play that game again” because thinking of ways to open the door is not playing a game by any reasonable definition of those words.)
Ah. That's in fact the most commonly seen of the four possibilities and is exactly what we're talking about above with the door: failure means no change, success means the PCs gain entry to whatever lies beyond (which, situationally dependent, may or may not be all that meaningful right away...).@tetrasodium suggested that rather than a meaningful consequence for failure being a prerequisite for a roll to be called for, a meaningful consequence for failure and for success should be required. I meant to say that I struggle to imagine a case where success has a meaningful consequence but failure doesn’t,
No worries.but like I said, I mistyped and accidentally requested an example of the opposite. That’s my fault, sorry for the confusion.
