Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8480109" data-attributes="member: 6779196">My reading of the Role of the Dice is that Rolling With It involves calling for a roll any time an action has a chance of failure - a criteria for uncertainty that is very clearly laid out in the rules. This approach doesn’t really take meaningful stakes into consideration, it merely assumes that the risk of failure alone is enough to establish uncertainty. In my experience, this style is favored by DMs who think of “using skills” as actions in and of themselves, and there is also a strong correlation between DMs who use this style and those who rule that failure on a roll means no further attempts can be made unless circumstances change. While I personally don’t care for this style, I must concede (and have done so up thread when [USER=7032025]@Lyxen[/USER] pointed it out) that it is supported by the rules, albeit with the caveat that it has some drawbacks (which I personally find to be intolerable).On the other end of the spectrum, ignoring the dice favors ruling automatic success or failure unless doing so would violate another rule, or if absolutely no hint of certainty can be found. This style is likewise supported, with the caveat that it has drawbacks (which I personally find tolerable, but less than ideal)The middle path balances between the two by using meaningful stakes as an additional criteria for uncertainty. It is supported and lists no drawbacks, though I would note that some (looking at you, [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]) may consider the fact that this often means granting automatic success despite failure being a possibility to be a drawback of this style, as it may break their sense of versimilitude.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8480109, member: 6779196"] My reading of the Role of the Dice is that Rolling With It involves calling for a roll any time an action has a chance of failure - a criteria for uncertainty that is very clearly laid out in the rules. This approach doesn’t really take meaningful stakes into consideration, it merely assumes that the risk of failure alone is enough to establish uncertainty. In my experience, this style is favored by DMs who think of “using skills” as actions in and of themselves, and there is also a strong correlation between DMs who use this style and those who rule that failure on a roll means no further attempts can be made unless circumstances change. While I personally don’t care for this style, I must concede (and have done so up thread when [USER=7032025]@Lyxen[/USER] pointed it out) that it [I]is[/I] supported by the rules, albeit with the caveat that it has some drawbacks (which I personally find to be intolerable). On the other end of the spectrum, ignoring the dice favors ruling automatic success or failure unless doing so would violate another rule, or if absolutely no hint of certainty can be found. This style is likewise supported, with the caveat that it has drawbacks (which I personally find tolerable, but less than ideal) The middle path balances between the two by using meaningful stakes as an additional criteria for uncertainty. It is supported and lists no drawbacks, though I would note that some (looking at you, [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]) may consider the fact that this often means granting automatic success despite failure being a possibility to be a drawback of this style, as it may break their sense of versimilitude. [/QUOTE]

Verification