Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5502012" data-attributes="member: 3820">This is an interesting example, because what you have here is double uncertainty. The player winds up being uncertain (a) what he has to roll, and (b) what he will roll. It's twice as many elements that he can't really account for. Well, it's also often a matter of wanting to be able to look at your die roll and tell whether or not you succeeded instead of looking down at the "4" and then looking back at the GM to see whether or not that was good enough. It can make a player feel more like the arbiter of his or her own fate: if I failed, it's because I rolled a 4. If you didn't know what you needed to roll, then you lack that certainty; for all you know, you failed because the GM shifted the goal posts in his head. I'm sure you didn't do this yourself, jmucchiello, so don't take this as criticism -- I'm just noting that you can be certain that the GM didn't do this only if you trust him implicitly, or if you knew the odds ahead of time.</blockquote>