Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6282373" data-attributes="member: 23484">This is a really interesting conversation -- thanks.I do not like the keep-trying-till-you-make-it solution, and (for myself as a player) I want one person to make one attempt at a roll that is affecting the whole party, that either succeeds or doesn't. This is true even of perception rolls -- if it's simply a matter of six people rolling to see who gets told they hear goblins in the next room, it just feels the stakes are so low: someone is going to pass, and that's that. A bad roll means other solutions need to be found. When things become narratively interesting is when failure affects individuals and not the party: swimming a river, and the two in heavy armour start to drown; climbing a rock face, and one person slips. There, everyone making a roll makes sense, and (again) teamwork should have its rewards. The question of time is another matter. The solution used in FATE is the best I have seen in play:there's a time track (e.g. seconds-half a minute-minutes-15 minutes-an hour-hours-a day-days-a week-weeks--a month-months-a year-years-decades-a lifetime). The ref sets the target number and the expected time to accomplish an action. If the layer beats it with the roll, it can be done quicker by that many shifts; if they fail, they can succeed by taking the extra time. So picking a lock might take a thief minutes, but beating it (let's say for each +2) can reduce that time. Researching a new spell might normally take years, but a successful roll might reduce that to a few months. It's a very clean system in play, but it would obviously need some tweaking to fit D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 6282373, member: 23484"] This is a really interesting conversation -- thanks. I do not like the keep-trying-till-you-make-it solution, and (for myself as a player) I want one person to make one attempt at a roll that is affecting the whole party, that either succeeds or doesn't. This is true even of perception rolls -- if it's simply a matter of six people rolling to see who gets told they hear goblins in the next room, it just feels the stakes are so low: someone is going to pass, and that's that. A bad roll means other solutions need to be found. When things become narratively interesting is when failure affects individuals and not the party: swimming a river, and the two in heavy armour start to drown; climbing a rock face, and one person slips. There, everyone making a roll makes sense, and (again) teamwork should have its rewards. The question of time is another matter. The solution used in FATE is the best I have seen in play: there's a time track (e.g. seconds-half a minute-minutes-15 minutes-an hour-hours-a day-days-a week-weeks--a month-months-a year-years-decades-a lifetime). The ref sets the target number and the expected time to accomplish an action. If the layer beats it with the roll, it can be done quicker by that many shifts; if they fail, they can succeed by taking the extra time. So picking a lock might take a thief minutes, but beating it (let's say for each +2) can reduce that time. Researching a new spell might normally take years, but a successful roll might reduce that to a few months. It's a very clean system in play, but it would obviously need some tweaking to fit D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification