Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 7000461" data-attributes="member: 6776133">I think you're mistaken in your conclusion. The resolution isn't binary. While the characters choice appears random, it's based on the player's judgment of their circumstances and reliance on their experiences. (It helps if the DM keeps the design on theme, so where you're in drow-town, you reasonably can expect poison arrows, etc).&nbsp; But we still have the possibilities for automatic success, automatic failure, and &quot;Idk, let's roll.&quot;&nbsp; That 3rd option engages with the character's master-roguery. The declared action, whatever it is, determines what's next. And there is tension there prior to the roll. Scenario 2 is one I avoid, generally. (Except in DW or AW where &quot;DM invents a consequence&quot; is embedded into the rule of a move). But you're right, outside of that, it's narrative-monkeying. You want the player to worry about the right choice AND the probability of that choice tied to the character's skills. Isn't it already? That's what the ability modifier, proficiency, and expertise are designed to do - represent improvement or skill that directly impacts their odds of succeeding at something. What about omitting DCs?&nbsp; Set those secretly, don't say what they are, and a player can feel confident (but not certain) of a high roll. Or set a variable DC by making all checks &quot;opposed&quot; rolls. Even if a character rolls very high, they still need to beat an X factor. ... which ... now I see where your secret failure roll idea comes from. Hm. It's not different than an opposed roll, really. It's just a sliding fail% that diminishes as you level. For simplicity, and for satisfaction, I think I would do it as an opposed roll. Mostly bc if I rolled high and you rolled higher, then I just got beat fair and square. But if I rolled high and you rolled the fail die in a way that caused me to fail, I'd feel gypped of success. And on balance, I'd prefer to be beaten fairly than robbed. -Brad</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bawylie, post: 7000461, member: 6776133"] I think you're mistaken in your conclusion. The resolution isn't binary. While the characters choice appears random, it's based on the player's judgment of their circumstances and reliance on their experiences. (It helps if the DM keeps the design on theme, so where you're in drow-town, you reasonably can expect poison arrows, etc). But we still have the possibilities for automatic success, automatic failure, and "Idk, let's roll." That 3rd option engages with the character's master-roguery. The declared action, whatever it is, determines what's next. And there is tension there prior to the roll. Scenario 2 is one I avoid, generally. (Except in DW or AW where "DM invents a consequence" is embedded into the rule of a move). But you're right, outside of that, it's narrative-monkeying. You want the player to worry about the right choice AND the probability of that choice tied to the character's skills. Isn't it already? That's what the ability modifier, proficiency, and expertise are designed to do - represent improvement or skill that directly impacts their odds of succeeding at something. What about omitting DCs? Set those secretly, don't say what they are, and a player can feel confident (but not certain) of a high roll. Or set a variable DC by making all checks "opposed" rolls. Even if a character rolls very high, they still need to beat an X factor. ... which ... now I see where your secret failure roll idea comes from. Hm. It's not different than an opposed roll, really. It's just a sliding fail% that diminishes as you level. For simplicity, and for satisfaction, I think I would do it as an opposed roll. Mostly bc if I rolled high and you rolled higher, then I just got beat fair and square. But if I rolled high and you rolled the fail die in a way that caused me to fail, I'd feel gypped of success. And on balance, I'd prefer to be beaten fairly than robbed. -Brad [/QUOTE]

Verification