Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PeacemakerSG" data-source="post: 5820085" data-attributes="member: 53077">This is a great example and a good place to remind us that we are discussing a role playing game which traditionally has an adventure focus, not a sim focus.  The more detailed the rules, the more rules lawyers you get and the greater the distraction from adventurous opportunities.  So wiggle room is better than exactitude.The first step in any roll/check must be the DM's pre-determination of its significance and potential consequences.  For the Gather Info check.  If the information sought does not spoil the campaign and would be common to the person on the street, then a take #  in substitute for role playing each encounter would be fine.  If the DM sees opportunities to add to the story, then a take # would not necessarily work.  For example, you fail a check but the DM doesn't tell you you failed but rather provides the player with some Gathered Info.  The info is perhaps not accurate but in any case is meant to further the adventure.  The player(s) may eventually discover that the info was incorrect or even purposefully deceptive and bingo, there's another adventure thread.  Why did the person lie, etc.?Checks are always to further an adventure and if they don't create an opportunity, or rather create an unwanted opportunity (in the case of a failure) then the DM should bypass the check with a take #.  Otherwise, the DM may want to allow something unusual such as the lock that does open but otherwise seems mundane.  The player/thief will ask why he failed or for a recheck and then the DM reveals that it looks like it is in fact a broken lock therefore some other means to open the door/chest/safe will be needed.  Why's the lock broken?  Someone else was here before us, the contents are not valuable, this is a trap, the kingdom is in ill repair, etc?  Failure has to be useful for the story.As for the numbers/math itself, the system is flawed, as alluded to by many, in that the chance of failure is often disproportionally high in comparison to the skill level of a player.  D100 works better for auto fail but then again, failure is failure regardless so a 1 is no different from a 2 if the success roll requires a 14.  At best, the degree of failure, by how much the roll missed the mark, can be used to play out the result.  For example, missing by 1, your hand slipped and you dropped you tool. Missing by 13, you slipped and sliced your hand wide open and are gushing blood - the ravenous howls of the blood sniffing creatures that live in this dungeon are immediately heard in raised cacophony (DM hides smile - what do you do now?).  So the specifc number 10 or 20 as terms are fairly meaningless.  It is better to state an intention, goal or time committed, then have the DM adjudicate with respect to the story.  Players: We stay until we find something or find X or complete X.   DM:  After 10 minutes nothing is found.  Players:  We search another…. Eventually it is either communicated that they are not capable or nothing is there to be found all within a few seconds of real time.  Rather than say take 10 or take 20, it would be better to have a fixed action words or phrases (although take # can convey that).  Players: We want to thoroughly search the room for concealed doors.  DM: Ok, you estimate that it could take 5 minutes.  Players: Ok, we do it (knowing what five minutes may mean to the story).Players: We want to thoroughly search the room for secret doors.  DM:  Ok, that could take two hours as it is a library with hundreds of books (potential levers) and furniture and such.  Players: uh, our hour glass says we have only twenty minutes to find the X and stop the Y, we'll perform a quick check for secret doors then run out.Both scenario still require DM pre-determined thought about the potential results and ramifications of failure/success.  Taking twenty is therefore meaningless.  It must always fall from player/DM/story intention.  "We want to set up camp" should never be challenged with a roll unless the DM wants to open up the mundane to the chance of adventure thread, and when asked to roll for something mundane, the players usually get excited - something is afoot.  I recommend doing away with the specific take # rule and simply coach DMs/players as to how to communicate intention so that the game can move along and/or add to the unfolding story.The only alternate rule I would consider is an additional bonus to a check.  In the case of jumping the pit, the player makes all manner of possible preparations such as, clearing the ground of small obstacles, noting the slippery spots, the stability of the terrain, the wind, etc.  You get a +# to the roll.  But the immediate problem there is that it gives other players who should fail, too much chance to succeed, swinging the pendulum from too likely too fail.  And to that I counter my own notion with, the terrain and other factors are what add to the DC and the skill level assumes that much of the preparatory work would be done anyway, so any preparatory bonus should be small (probably) but certainly universally appropriate to anyone attempting the action regardless of their skill level (+1 for clearing the debris, +8 for first successfully casting a stop gale force wind spell).</blockquote>

Verification