Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="a-d" data-source="post: 5702367" data-attributes="member: 6672372">Would you allow a player to say that instead of rolling to determine success, they wanted it to be assumed they had rolled a one?To summon bad luck?This is based on the assumption that being allowed such a thing leaves it in the GM's hands on how &quot;Bad Luck&quot; was to be interpreted?Since careful application of summoning bad luck might cause abuse:&quot;I attempt to to miss the enemy in front of me.&quot;&quot;Okay.&quot;&quot;And now I summon a bad luck roll of 1.&quot;This would mean that allowing such a thing would leave the interpretation of what the &quot;Bad Luck&quot; did to the GM who would be well advised to take a third option every time bad luck is summoned in this manner in the hopes of stopping whatever subtle trick the player may be trying to pull.&quot;Your sword catches on their armor and takes 1d6 of damage. Also, you sprain your arm and are unable to attack for 2 rounds.That doesn't sound good enough.&quot;Your sweaty hands lose their grip&nbsp; on your sword, causing it to fly off behind you and...roll...hit your parties archer in the leg, who screams and falls over grabbing at a nearby rope which looses one of the chandeliers to fall on you and your opponent for...roll...five damage.The chandelier breaks the spear of your opponent, sending the spearhead whizzing to plunge deep into the wooden headrest of the judges seat. Three inches from their head.&quot;...And that sounds like too much...If you would allow this, would you allow &quot;Super Bad Luck?&quot;Requesting super bad luck from the GM and &quot;Placing&quot; a d20 down on 20. (Cheating on purpose for the bad luck.)Too problematic?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="a-d, post: 5702367, member: 6672372"] Would you allow a player to say that instead of rolling to determine success, they wanted it to be assumed they had rolled a one? To summon bad luck? This is based on the assumption that being allowed such a thing leaves it in the GM's hands on how "Bad Luck" was to be interpreted? Since careful application of summoning bad luck might cause abuse: "I attempt to to miss the enemy in front of me." "Okay." "And now I summon a bad luck roll of 1." This would mean that allowing such a thing would leave the interpretation of what the "Bad Luck" did to the GM who would be well advised to take a third option every time bad luck is summoned in this manner in the hopes of stopping whatever subtle trick the player may be trying to pull. "Your sword catches on their armor and takes 1d6 of damage. Also, you sprain your arm and are unable to attack for 2 rounds. That doesn't sound good enough. "Your sweaty hands lose their grip on your sword, causing it to fly off behind you and...roll...hit your parties archer in the leg, who screams and falls over grabbing at a nearby rope which looses one of the chandeliers to fall on you and your opponent for...roll...five damage. The chandelier breaks the spear of your opponent, sending the spearhead whizzing to plunge deep into the wooden headrest of the judges seat. Three inches from their head." ...And that sounds like too much... If you would allow this, would you allow "Super Bad Luck?" Requesting super bad luck from the GM and "Placing" a d20 down on 20. (Cheating on purpose for the bad luck.) Too problematic? [/QUOTE]

Verification