Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9773936" data-attributes="member: 1008">To me, a reaction roll is something I rely on to guide my behaviour when it's not clear how an NPC will react. While it may result in complications, the purpose of the roll isn't to introduce complications, it's simply to abrogate some of the responsibility for NPC attitude to the dice. I can see how you might draw parallels to modern mechanics, but I'm not sure I view them in the same way.I'm more confused by much of the rest of your post. I don't really understand how you reach the conclusion that fighting can be reduced to a system for  introducing complications via the outcome, but a moving manoeuvre check for crossing an icy surface or a static manoeuvre for palming an item is (apparently) not. Either they are all designed to introducing complications (although, again, see my comments to @hawkeyfan, that I don't think that would be consistent with the way we typically describe these sorts mechanics and if all mechanics are just adding complications, we just need to find a new way of describing what's so special about "yes, but") or none of them are.Either way, I see no basis for assigning combat and injury rules some special "complicating" effect that other RM mechanics don't have. In each case, a moving manoeuvre, a static manoeuvre and an attack is a system for determining the outcome of a character's actions -- no more, no less.</blockquote>