Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7000240">This is another thing I addressed in the first draft.Beside just hating it when DMs roll for their players, rolling behind the screen doesn't really leave uncertainty.&nbsp; At most it can conflate negatives with false negatives.&nbsp; &quot;You can't tell.&quot;&nbsp; But it can't produce believable false positives, not unless the DM improvises, or uses a house rule like &quot;Natural 1 produces opposite answer.&quot;&nbsp; And the problem with THAT (in my mind) is that the chance of a false positive is always 1/20, regardless of skill or roll.So I was looking for a system where the player gets to roll their own dice, and see their own dice, and the strength of the roll influences their faith in the answer...but always leaving a realistic and immersive seed of doubt.Yes, I considered using this as the secondary roll (I'm fairly convinced that a complementary secret roll is necessary to achieve what I'm looking for) but I like how the probabilities work out with my system better.The only thing my system does not provide is the possibility of convincing false negatives, which I admit is a shortcoming.Yes, absolutely.&quot;Can I disarm it?&quot;&nbsp; (roll)(secret roll) &quot;Looks feasible.&quot;&quot;Ok, I try, do I succeed?&quot; (roll)(secret roll) &quot;Seems like it.&quot;&quot;Ok, I open the chest.&quot;...click...BOOM!!!By the way, the scenario I was really thinking about with all of this was pathfinding, and there I LOVE the ambiguity.&nbsp; You come to a junction in the cave system, and you roll some skill to determine the best way, and the DM gives you an answer, but you may never know for sure if it was in fact the best way.&nbsp; &nbsp; Now that's immersion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7000240"] This is another thing I addressed in the first draft. Beside just hating it when DMs roll for their players, rolling behind the screen doesn't really leave uncertainty. At most it can conflate negatives with false negatives. "You can't tell." But it can't produce believable false positives, not unless the DM improvises, or uses a house rule like "Natural 1 produces opposite answer." And the problem with THAT (in my mind) is that the chance of a false positive is always 1/20, regardless of skill or roll. So I was looking for a system where the player gets to roll their own dice, and see their own dice, and the strength of the roll influences their faith in the answer...but always leaving a realistic and immersive seed of doubt. Yes, I considered using this as the secondary roll (I'm fairly convinced that a complementary secret roll is necessary to achieve what I'm looking for) but I like how the probabilities work out with my system better. The only thing my system does not provide is the possibility of convincing false negatives, which I admit is a shortcoming. Yes, absolutely. "Can I disarm it?" (roll) (secret roll) "Looks feasible." "Ok, I try, do I succeed?" (roll) (secret roll) "Seems like it." "Ok, I open the chest." ...click... BOOM!!! By the way, the scenario I was really thinking about with all of this was pathfinding, and there I LOVE the ambiguity. You come to a junction in the cave system, and you roll some skill to determine the best way, and the DM gives you an answer, but [I]you may never know for sure if it was in fact the best way[/I]. Now that's immersion. [/QUOTE]

Verification