Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6306763" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's hard to give specific examples out of context. But I think, especially when I used to GM Rolemaster, that there have been times when I've taken the ordinary action resolution mechanics too seriously as setting the limits of what is possible in the game. In RM this is ameliorated a little bit because it has open ended rolls (most things are resolved on d100, and a 96-100 allows rolling again and adding - over the years there were some memorable moments of double- and even triple-open-ended rolls which saved PCs from disaster). But sometimes it can have the effect of shutting down the game.Part of the issue is one of fairness - if, most of the time, you resolve falling damage on d6 per 10' fallen, how come this time this particular PC gets a % chance of surviving? I didn't use to have a good answer to that question, and so usen't to give the % chance. Whereas now I think I have a better grasp on how to handle some of these issues.An interesting, and very strong, version of the Moldvay approach to "There's always a chance" (that's another heading that appears on p B60) is found in 13th Age: the players can always declare that their PCs retreat and make it out alive, but the GM then has licence to respond by declaring a "campaign defeat" - one important goal that the players have is forfeited, going against them. In Moldvay's example, for instance, the player can always declare that his/her PC survives the drop by landing in the water, but the GM then gets to declare that while he recovers consciousness, the baddies get to do XYZ. (I'd think of it somewhat along the lines of when Aragorn goes over the cliff in the Two Towers movie.)This is one way of handling the fairness issue.</blockquote>

Verification