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: 5629697" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's over a year since I ran my scenario with a deathlock wight, so I'm a little hazy on the precise details, but the resolution went something like this:*I described the wight confronting the PCs with its horrific visage (I can't remember exactly how I described it, but probably someting about it's features disapearing and its true, decaying form become briefly visible). *I then rolled a d20 for each PC in the blast area, added the wight's attack bonus, and asked each player, in turn, "Does a total of X hit your Will defence"? *Once it was established that at least one PC was hit, I rolled a damage die. *And to those who answered, "Yes" to my question about Will defences, I then said something like "You recoil in fear from the horrific wight. Take Z damage." *I then moved the tokens on the map that reprsented those PCs who had been hit by the attack, thereby represented where their recoiling moved them too. *As I've already posted, one of the PCs (I think the ranger), stepped back over the lip of an open pit and fell, but was saved by the fact that the PCs had roped themselves together.I don't think there is anything in the above that is dramatically different from action resolution in AD&D, Rolemaster or any other maintream game - dice are rolled, compared to target numbers (or look up tables, or whatever), and then consequences applied with a corresponding change in the fictional state of affairs.And I don't think there was any doubt about what was changing in the fictional state of affairs. The affected PCs had recoiled in fear. That was why they had moved (mechanically, this was dictated by the push effect; as far as keeping track of the fiction, it was represented by moving tokens on a map). That was why they were now more worn down, and somewhat closer to the possibility of defeat (mechanically, this was dictated by the hit point loss inflicted).EDIT: On further reflection, I don't think the ranger actually fell down the pit. I think that he would have, but for the rope. As best I can recall, I think that the ranger was at the end of the rope, and the dwarf fighter was next. We decided - after looking at the position of the PCs relative to the pit and the length of rope between them - that the player of the dwarf should make a STR check: on a failure the ranger would fall down the pit and pull the fighter with him, but on a success the dwarf would be able to stand his ground, meaning that the rope would prevent the ranger from falling. And I think that the check was a success. (I'm becoming more confident that the ranger didn't fall, because I remember the encounter ending up being a fairly easy one for the party because they roped themselves together and it worked - and if the ranger, one of their two strikers, had fallen down the pit then I don't think the encounter could have gone easily for them.)Anyway, I do clearly remember the players being pleased that roping together had paid off.</blockquote>

Verification