Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5573419" data-attributes="member: 18280">I didn't claim that the idea was....just the execution (AFAIK).And, IME, far more engaging.Why assume a 25% chance of failure on each roll?  Remember, the player determines the gamble the character makes.If I gamble big and lose with the first skill check, I can gamble small with the subsequent ones (as needed), or set a bar that I know I can defeat (i.e., where I succeed on a 1), in order to mitigate against that failure.  Also, in some cases, as the odds become stacked against you, you can simply not make the final skill check (i.e., you realize that you will fail) and try something else.(Not generally true in the case of fiddle contests with demons, however.)Moreover, the assumption that you can succeed with a single roll is a problem, as it is not always true.  Heck, in a system where DCs don't scale by level, it is often untrue.The idea is to create an engaging system for (some instances of) skill checks, similar to the way multiple rolls and decision points are used in combat.  You may say, "In game mechanics, and thus, in games, give me the single roll every time" but I doubt you would apply that to combat.  Likewise, it should not apply to all uses of skills.IMHO.  YMMV.RC</blockquote>