Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7584906" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot; If a difficult lock needs picking and there are no time constraints, why bother rolling? &quot;See, I can think of a lot of reasons, but as soon as I do it hits the conclusion layered into the rest of your post about &quot; pointless&quot; rolling or boring results.It's kind of a catch 22 definitional thing - whether or not a roll is pointless is determined by the GM, so a GM deciding &quot;I wont call for a roll because it is pointless&quot; is circular logic at best. If I am not gonna call for a roll &quot;why call it a &quot;difficult&quot; lock?But just a few for instances-That difficult lock can become jammed by the failed picking attempts (setback) requiring a different approach or tool that you have to go get.People, real people, dont always just keep trying for a long time cuz thry *know* sooner or later they will succeed. This is the flaw in the only roll if they csa succeed, calling for a roll says *you can roll through this*. The process tells them something about the scene.If they knew a roll would be required regardless, then that likely means after a bit of work that keeps failing they likely switch to Plan B(oot) or Plan C(limb up the outer wall) or Plan K(nock Spell) etc.To me, &quot;difficult&quot; lock has to be shown to be just that, and an auto-success rarely gets that across. The marginal case eould be if an early lock system is presented so without time constraints as foreshadowing. Then, the party has long rests available *and* Intel to conclude &quot;more like these ahead and we will be under fire&quot; so maybe the plan and prepare quick door-beater plans (knock spells, Bulled Up Fighters to force doors, etc) for the future. But that's just as effective foreshadowed if not more with rolls and setbacks. But for me, if I am not gonna make it a roll, it's gonna be an easy auro-success or it's not gonna be a task/challenge. &quot;This door is broken (reasons), so you can slide it forward but you see the lock that was there and it looks like a doozey.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7584906, member: 6919838"] " If a difficult lock needs picking and there are no time constraints, why bother rolling? " See, I can think of a lot of reasons, but as soon as I do it hits the conclusion layered into the rest of your post about " pointless" rolling or boring results. It's kind of a catch 22 definitional thing - whether or not a roll is pointless is determined by the GM, so a GM deciding "I wont call for a roll because it is pointless" is circular logic at best. If I am not gonna call for a roll "why call it a "difficult" lock? But just a few for instances- That difficult lock can become jammed by the failed picking attempts (setback) requiring a different approach or tool that you have to go get. People, real people, dont always just keep trying for a long time cuz thry *know* sooner or later they will succeed. This is the flaw in the only roll if they csa succeed, calling for a roll says *you can roll through this*. The process tells them something about the scene. If they knew a roll would be required regardless, then that likely means after a bit of work that keeps failing they likely switch to Plan B(oot) or Plan C(limb up the outer wall) or Plan K(nock Spell) etc. To me, "difficult" lock has to be shown to be just that, and an auto-success rarely gets that across. The marginal case eould be if an early lock system is presented so without time constraints as foreshadowing. Then, the party has long rests available *and* Intel to conclude "more like these ahead and we will be under fire" so maybe the plan and prepare quick door-beater plans (knock spells, Bulled Up Fighters to force doors, etc) for the future. But that's just as effective foreshadowed if not more with rolls and setbacks. But for me, if I am not gonna make it a roll, it's gonna be an easy auro-success or it's not gonna be a task/challenge. "This door is broken (reasons), so you can slide it forward but you see the lock that was there and it looks like a doozey." [/QUOTE]

Verification