Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7796269" data-attributes="member: 16814">Ah, I see where you're coming from now, but still disagree.&nbsp; For me, the attempt must have valid stakes -- big efforts at high risk must entail high costs or it's kinda bland.&nbsp; If you can go for 10 flips, because that gets you the big prize, but it's hard, then failing, to me, will entail a cost for the effort.&nbsp; Likewise, if you try to do the huge stunt of falling a long distance and taking no damage, the risk for that reward has to balance.&nbsp; If you can just do okay and you still get a reward for your effort, this means that decision wasn't really hard or challenging.&nbsp; Likewise, if you can aim lower but roll well and just get the big reward anyway, this means that there's never a reason to risk big failure -- you can stick to mediocre failure and hope the dice give you the big win.I want my players to engage the fiction in a thoroughly risky way.&nbsp; To go for the big plays sometimes and risk the big setbacks.&nbsp; Your presentation of letting high rolls get more actively diminishes the roll of what the player puts at risk in the action.&nbsp; It encourages aiming for the middle to mitigate risk while still entertaining the possibility of large reward.&nbsp; It fights against the presentation of the game.So, yes, if you try to fall 100' and take no damage (and aren't a monk), then the risk is big, it'll be hard, and failure will be ugly.&nbsp; The dice aren't to be looked at as a friend that can gift free stuff on high rolls, but a fickle monster that can hand out success and failure according to what you, the player, have risked.&nbsp; I do not view this to be at all a 10 flips or 0 flips.&nbsp; It's, like I've said, a 'did you succeed at the goal you set with your approach of doing flips.'&nbsp; The number of flips is color, but, as I don't tend to play farce, it'll never be 0 flips.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7796269, member: 16814"] Ah, I see where you're coming from now, but still disagree. For me, the attempt must have valid stakes -- big efforts at high risk must entail high costs or it's kinda bland. If you can go for 10 flips, because that gets you the big prize, but it's hard, then failing, to me, will entail a cost for the effort. Likewise, if you try to do the huge stunt of falling a long distance and taking no damage, the risk for that reward has to balance. If you can just do okay and you still get a reward for your effort, this means that decision wasn't really hard or challenging. Likewise, if you can aim lower but roll well and just get the big reward anyway, this means that there's never a reason to risk big failure -- you can stick to mediocre failure and hope the dice give you the big win. I want my players to engage the fiction in a thoroughly risky way. To go for the big plays sometimes and risk the big setbacks. Your presentation of letting high rolls get more actively diminishes the roll of what the player puts at risk in the action. It encourages aiming for the middle to mitigate risk while still entertaining the possibility of large reward. It fights against the presentation of the game. So, yes, if you try to fall 100' and take no damage (and aren't a monk), then the risk is big, it'll be hard, and failure will be ugly. The dice aren't to be looked at as a friend that can gift free stuff on high rolls, but a fickle monster that can hand out success and failure according to what you, the player, have risked. I do not view this to be at all a 10 flips or 0 flips. It's, like I've said, a 'did you succeed at the goal you set with your approach of doing flips.' The number of flips is color, but, as I don't tend to play farce, it'll never be 0 flips. [/QUOTE]

Verification