NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AnotherGuy" data-source="post: 9697599" data-attributes="member: 7029930">Dude attempts to pick lock and fails.How much time did that attempt take? Do you inform the player beforehand how much time it is going to take for their best attempt?I do not think I'm understanding you here.A hockey player has as many attempts to take a shot as he is given in a game.Each shot is likely affected by different factors (angles, speed, obstacles, readiness of the keeper etc). These are all different approaches as per your comment in the first paragraph.Each attempt requires a separate roll.I do not see the correlation.I'm suggesting a swimmer rolled a 20 that one time and each other time they roll again, how am I suggesting that they roll the perfect score all the time? And every success should not be equated to personal-best time. In the lock pick example, the person takes x minutes and fails, are you really saying that it makes sense in the fiction for that dude to not be able to pick that lock the whole day because in that 5 minutes his best roll was y?Take-10 and Take-20 are great rules as they short-cut the issue with the cost (consequence) advertised.I'm not against ALL gamist rules obviously as I have advertised plenty that I use in this thread to limit my own GM bias.I am though against rules that make no sense to me for the fiction at the table.For me the fiction needs to reflect permanent failure for there to be no more attempts allowed - i.e. the person you are trying to persuade becomes annoyed or the lock becomes damaged and you surmise it is now beyond lock picking or the orc is dead, any further attacks have no affect other than to butcher the body.</blockquote>

Verification