D&D 5E Why I'm introducing the Oracle to my D&D Game (and reducing my own DM Authority)

[BookTenTiger]

As I've mentioned in a few threads, I've fallen head over heels in love with the game Ironsworn. The basic game can be downloaded for free, though its excellent expansions (Delve and Starforged) must be purchased (and should be!).

Ironsworn is designed for very small groups or solo play. To aide in this, the game has a system called The Oracle. It's basically a series of tables you can roll on in order to generate settlements, NPC's, plot twists, enemy actions, etc. This, of course, is already very much in-line with D&D, home of so many famous random tables.

However, The Oracle has another use, and that's to answer questions about the campaign world, consequences, or really anything else. Here's how it works:

Let's say I'm playing a solo game and my character, a hunter, is trying to fight a big ol' wyvern. I know the wyvern's going to be swooping down at me, but I'm not sure if it's going to try to snatch me or my faithful hunting hound. Rather than choosing, I ask the Oracle! I decide it's "likely" that the wyvern would want to grab the unarmed dog rather than this hunter with a spear pointed and its belly. I roll a d100 and get 34. So to my question "Does the wyvern snatch my hunting hound?" the answer is "yes."

Here's another example: I'm currently running an Ironsworn game for three friends. We decided on a quest to save a town from a plague. We asked the Oracle a series of yes or no questions to figure out what's going on with this plague. First we asked "Does the plague cause a physical reaction?" We decided it was "Almost Certain" that the plague cause physical reactions... and rolled below 11! So the answer was "No." Then through a series of further questions, we figured out that this "plague" was actually a magical mental illness that cause paranoia and waking visions. None of us would have come up with that idea originally, and it was so fun to see it develop as we asked more questions and rolled!

Some further examples from the Ironsworn book include:

• "Is there somewhere I can hide?"
• "Do I drop my sword or my shield?"
• "Do I know the way?"

These questions remind me of those frustrating moments in D&D when you're not sure if a character would know something you don't know as a player, or if something exists in the campaign world that you haven't decided on as a DM. I remember playing in a campaign in which we were fighting this huge storm elemental. We asked the DM if we could use a metal rod to attract the elemental's lightning attacks, and the DM said that lightning rods didn't exist in the campaign world. Personally, to me, this didn't make much sense, since the cantrip Shocking Grasp grants advantage for attacks against opponents wearing metal or made of metal armor. It felt like the D&D rules assumed characters knew lightning was attracted to metal. The small debate we had left a sour taste, and only now do I realize that using The Oracle could have easily solved this problem!

Rather than debating at the table whether Faerun has lightning rods, we could have rolled on the Oracle Table! In fact, I'll do it now. Let's say the DM says it's Unlikely that our characters would know of lightning rods. I roll a d100 and get... 23. That's a "No." The dice have spoken, problem solved.

This is why I'm going to introduce The Oracle into my next D&D game. Rather than having to be the authority on every aspect of my campaign world, I'm going to leave questions up to the dice! Here are some situations I look forward to using The Oracle with:

• "Is it safter to travel by sea or by land?"
• "Would my character have met the Baron before?"
• "Does anyone in this band of goblins speak Orcish?"
• "How does this town survive in isolation when the wilderness is too dangerous to farm?"
• "Could I have entered the medusa's lair with my eyes closed?"

Often when I receive questions like this, I go through a little internal debate. "What would be fun for the players? Does this match my vision of the campaign world? Am I being too lenient? To strict?"

The Oracle solves these problems!

For Yes / No questions, either I (or the table) decides on the likeliness of getting a "Yes."

For open-ended questions, we brainstorm two different options and then choose which one is more likely!

And at the end of the day, it's not the DM making these decisions... blame the Oracle!

...

So what do you think? Would you use the Oracle in your D&D campaign? Do you feel like the players would respect the results? Would you be willing to give up some DM Authority and leave some decisions up to the Oracle?

 

[Lanefan]

Here are some situations I look forward to using The Oracle with:

• "Is it safter to travel by sea or by land?"
• "Would my character have met the Baron before?"
• "Does anyone in this band of goblins speak Orcish?"
• "How does this town survive in isolation when the wilderness is too dangerous to farm?"
• "Could I have entered the medusa's lair with my eyes closed?"

...

So what do you think? Would you use the Oracle in your D&D campaign? Do you feel like the players would respect the results? Would you be willing to give up some DM Authority and leave some decisions up to the Oracle?

For questions like the first three above, if I-as-DM don't already know the answer I kind of already use an informal oracle-like system for myself: I just roll for it (or, in the case of the Baron question, have the player roll for it); but the PCs may or may not know until-unless they interact or ask questions.

For example, a non-local PC isn't likely to know if it's safer to travel by sea or land until-unless asking in-character someone familiar with the region; and at that point I'd roll to see a) what the true answer is and then b) whether the local knows it. They won't know if any of the Goblins speak Orcish until-unless they overhear it being spoken or try speaking it to the Goblins and see if any respond.

Getting useful answers for the last two would almost always require actual research by the PCs, in terms of investigation or divination or consulting with someone. The Oracle, as you present it here, would seem to be intended as a means of bypassing this in-character info-gathering process, which isn't something I'd want.

Note this applies to larger groups as well as solo or small group play.

 

[dave2008]

As I've mentioned in a few threads, I've fallen head over heels in love with the game Ironsworn. The basic game can be downloaded for free, though its excellent expansions (Delve and Starforged) must be purchased (and should be!).

Ironsworn is designed for very small groups or solo play. To aide in this, the game has a system called The Oracle. It's basically a series of tables you can roll on in order to generate settlements, NPC's, plot twists, enemy actions, etc. This, of course, is already very much in-line with D&D, home of so many famous random tables.

However, The Oracle has another use, and that's to answer questions about the campaign world, consequences, or really anything else. Here's how it works:

View attachment 275368

Let's say I'm playing a solo game and my character, a hunter, is trying to fight a big ol' wyvern. I know the wyvern's going to be swooping down at me, but I'm not sure if it's going to try to snatch me or my faithful hunting hound. Rather than choosing, I ask the Oracle! I decide it's "likely" that the wyvern would want to grab the unarmed dog rather than this hunter with a spear pointed and its belly. I roll a d100 and get 34. So to my question "Does the wyvern snatch my hunting hound?" the answer is "yes."

Here's another example: I'm currently running an Ironsworn game for three friends. We decided on a quest to save a town from a plague. We asked the Oracle a series of yes or no questions to figure out what's going on with this plague. First we asked "Does the plague cause a physical reaction?" We decided it was "Almost Certain" that the plague cause physical reactions... and rolled below 11! So the answer was "No." Then through a series of further questions, we figured out that this "plague" was actually a magical mental illness that cause paranoia and waking visions. None of us would have come up with that idea originally, and it was so fun to see it develop as we asked more questions and rolled!

Some further examples from the Ironsworn book include:

• "Is there somewhere I can hide?"
• "Do I drop my sword or my shield?"
• "Do I know the way?"

These questions remind me of those frustrating moments in D&D when you're not sure if a character would know something you don't know as a player, or if something exists in the campaign world that you haven't decided on as a DM. I remember playing in a campaign in which we were fighting this huge storm elemental. We asked the DM if we could use a metal rod to attract the elemental's lightning attacks, and the DM said that lightning rods didn't exist in the campaign world. Personally, to me, this didn't make much sense, since the cantrip Shocking Grasp grants advantage for attacks against opponents wearing metal or made of metal armor. It felt like the D&D rules assumed characters knew lightning was attracted to metal. The small debate we had left a sour taste, and only now do I realize that using The Oracle could have easily solved this problem!

Rather than debating at the table whether Faerun has lightning rods, we could have rolled on the Oracle Table! In fact, I'll do it now. Let's say the DM says it's Unlikely that our characters would know of lightning rods. I roll a d100 and get... 23. That's a "No." The dice have spoken, problem solved.

This is why I'm going to introduce The Oracle into my next D&D game. Rather than having to be the authority on every aspect of my campaign world, I'm going to leave questions up to the dice! Here are some situations I look forward to using The Oracle with:

• "Is it safter to travel by sea or by land?"
• "Would my character have met the Baron before?"
• "Does anyone in this band of goblins speak Orcish?"
• "How does this town survive in isolation when the wilderness is too dangerous to farm?"
• "Could I have entered the medusa's lair with my eyes closed?"

Often when I receive questions like this, I go through a little internal debate. "What would be fun for the players? Does this match my vision of the campaign world? Am I being too lenient? To strict?"

The Oracle solves these problems!

For Yes / No questions, either I (or the table) decides on the likeliness of getting a "Yes."

For open-ended questions, we brainstorm two different options and then choose which one is more likely!

And at the end of the day, it's not the DM making these decisions... blame the Oracle!

...

So what do you think? Would you use the Oracle in your D&D campaign? Do you feel like the players would respect the results? Would you be willing to give up some DM Authority and leave some decisions up to the Oracle?

Love it - it think I will absolutely incorporate this into my games!

 

[DMZ2112]

No, worldbuilding is my favorite part of dungeon mastery. It's how I see my role, and how I derive most of my enjoyment from the game: creating a consistent world and seeing how the players bounce off of it. I wouldn't sign it over to random tables any sooner than I'd sign it over to ChatGPT, which by all accounts is a much more robust tool.

I'm not yucking your yum, or at least I hope I'm not. It's fine if that's what you want to do -- every dungeon master has their own strengths, and plays to them -- but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tie it into the concept of "authority" like this. Being trusted to build the world in which the game takes place is a privilege, not a right, and exercising that privilege doesn't make anyone a control freak. Dungeon masters deserve to have fun, too.

I think there's some value in pointing out to less experienced dungeon masters that they have a tool like this available to them, for use when they are uncertain about a setting truth, but dividing a d100 roll into binary 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% probabilities is not what I would call particularly inspired design.

I'd heard about Ironsworn's Oracle system in passing, and I was hoping it would have more nuance, like a target probability that reflects disagreement between party members on the likelihood of the outcome, or a way to assign different probabilities to multiple proposals on the table rather than reducing everything to an either-or. That would legitimately be interesting to me, in certain circumstances.

Often when I receive questions like this, I go through a little internal debate. "What would be fun for the players? Does this match my vision of the campaign world? Am I being too lenient? To strict?"

The Oracle solves these problems!

It doesn't, though, not really. What it does is give you a procedurally generated answer that at worst takes none of these very valid questions into consideration, and at best passes most of the responsibility of answering them to the players, who by design do not have your referee's frame of reference regarding the setting, campaign, or adventure. If you're running a more collaborative table, that's probably fine, but that is far from the baseline assumption of how D&D operates.

And at the end of the day, it's not the DM making these decisions... blame the Oracle!

I hope you are just being flip, here, but fear of accepting responsibility is never a good reason to do anything.

 

[dave2008]

No, worldbuilding is my favorite part of dungeon mastery. It's how I see my role, and how I derive most of my enjoyment from the game: creating a consistent world and seeing how the players bounce off of it. I wouldn't sign it over to random tables any sooner than I'd sign it over to ChatGPT, which by all accounts is a much more robust tool.

I'm not yucking your yum, or at least I hope I'm not. It's fine if that's what you want to do -- every dungeon master has their own strengths, and plays to them -- but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tie it into the concept of "authority" like this. Being trusted to build the world in which the game takes place is a privilege, not a right, and exercising that privilege doesn't make anyone a control freak. Dungeon masters deserve to have fun, too.

I think there's some value in pointing out to less experienced dungeon masters that they have a tool like this available to them, for use when they are uncertain about a setting truth, but dividing a d100 roll into binary 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% probabilities is not what I would call particularly inspired design.

I'd heard about Ironsworn's Oracle system in passing, and I was hoping it would have more nuance, like a target probability that reflects disagreement between party members on the likelihood of the outcome, or a way to assign different probabilities to multiple proposals on the table rather than reducing everything to an either-or. That would legitimately be interesting to me, in certain circumstances.


It doesn't, though, not really. What it does is give you a procedurally generated answer that at worst takes none of these very valid questions into consideration, and at best passes most of the responsibility of answering them to the players, who by design do not have your referee's frame of reference regarding the setting, campaign, or adventure. If you're running a more collaborative table, that's probably fine, but that is far from the baseline assumption of how D&D operates.


I hope you are just being flip, here, but fear of accepting responsibility is never a good reason to do anything.

It seems to me you are taking this to personally. It is just a fun little tool. Use it or not, no big deal.

Personally my group (I'm the DM) runs a more cooperative world design, so I think this would be a fun tool to use at certain times. Particularly sense it is complete sandbox and my group can do what ever they want and sometime what they do and where they go simply has not been anticipated - at all!

 

[JAMUMU]

I'm fine with designing/building a lot of the world, but I recognise that player input often improves on my ideas, or at least pushes them forward an iteration. Also, one person creating an entire world is a mammoth task and a little help goes a long way. So I leave lots of blank space and let it filled in as we go, often cooperatively.

However, there's no way I'm going to use your stinky Ironsworn oracle tables, because they made the wyvern kill the dog. The dog, man. Bad vibes all the way down!

/s

 

[BookTenTiger]

I'm fine with designing/building a lot of the world, but I recognise that player input often improves on my ideas, or at least pushes them forward an iteration. Also, one person creating an entire world is a mammoth task and a little help goes a long way. So I leave lots of blank space and let it filled in as we go, often cooperatively.

However, there's no way I'm going to use your stinky Ironsworn oracle tables, because they made the wyvern kill the dog. The dog, man. Bad vibes all the way down!

/s

That happened in my first solo Ironsworn game, I was crushed!!! Persimmon, my orange-furred hunting bound gifted to me by the clan chief, got abducted by the wyvern. Poor Persimmon...

 

[JAMUMU]

That happened in my first solo Ironsworn game, I was crushed!!! Persimmon, my orange-furred hunting bound gifted to me by the clan chief, got abducted by the wyvern. Poor Persimmon...

Does the dog die? is a question that should be added to every game.

 

[overgeeked]

That looks like a boiled down Mythic GM Emulator. There’s a solo actual play YouTuber who uses it extensively. Me, Myself, and Die.

So what do you think?

I think what is lost is rediscovered and lost again in cycles. This is a very old idea. Morale, reaction checks, random encounters, etc. It’s good to use random rolls for things instead on spending game time overthinking them.

Would you use the Oracle in your D&D campaign?

I always have to one degree or another.

Do you feel like the players would respect the results?

Unless I called it out to the players they likely wouldn’t have a clue.

Would you be willing to give up some DM Authority and leave some decisions up to the Oracle?

Again, I already do. I love random charts and rolls. Always use them to reduce my workload. I’d rather spend five minutes designing a random chart to reference at will than spend five minutes thinking about a new answer every time the same question comes up.

There are also non-binary routes to take.

Roll 1d6. 1 no, and. 2 no. 3 no, but. 4 yes, but. 5 yes. 6 yes, and. Adjust the probabilities by using 5E-style dis/advantage. Roll two, keep one.

Roll 2d6. 6- hard referee move. 7-9 soft referee & player moves. 10+ player move. Adjust with +/-2 or dis/advantage.

You can make all kinds of oracles.

 

[DMZ2112]

It seems to me you are taking this to personally. It is just a fun little tool. Use it or not, no big deal.

Agree or disagree with my points to your heart's content, but accusing me of taking the subject matter personally just tells me you can only refute my case by suggesting I'm responding emotionally therefore not making valid judgments.

Which, in turn, I do take personally -- because it's an insult.

Personally my group (I'm the DM) runs a more cooperative world design, so I think this would be a fun tool to use at certain times.

Which is one of the valid points I made in my post.

Particularly sense it is complete sandbox and my group can do what ever they want and sometime what they do and where they go simply has not been anticipated - at all!

Running a sandbox does not absolve you of the responsibility to satisfactorily resolve player action. If you want to farm it out to the whole table or use a random generator, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't lay it at the feet of running in sandbox style. Plenty of dungeon masters run sandboxes just fine via reliable prep and improv.

 

[dave2008]

Agree or disagree with my points to your heart's content, but accusing me of taking the subject matter personally just tells me you can only refute my case by suggesting I'm responding emotionally therefore not making valid judgments.

Which, in turn, I do take personally -- because it's an insult.

Sorry - didn't mean to insult! I wasn't trying to refute anything, your thoughts are valid! However, they also don't invalidate the OP.

Plenty of dungeon masters run sandboxes just fine via reliable prep and improv.

Yes, that is how I do it now (and for the past almost 40 years). However, I, as the DM, like the idea of not knowing. That is why I find this, or something similar, appealing. I only mentioned sandbox because I thought it fit that style more (and that is how we play), not that you needed it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Agree or disagree with my points to your heart's content, but accusing me of taking the subject matter personally just tells me you can only refute my case by suggesting I'm responding emotionally therefore not making valid judgments.

Which, in turn, I do take personally -- because it's an insult.


Which is one of the valid points I made in my post.


Running a sandbox does not absolve you of the responsibility to satisfactorily resolve player action. If you want to farm it out to the whole table or use a random generator, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't lay it at the feet of running in sandbox style. Plenty of dungeon masters run sandboxes just fine via reliable prep and improv.

Hey can you drop this whole "responsibility" angle? I think it's an emotionally-laden approach that's quite unnecessary.

To me, the Oracle is nice because it's a collaborative tool that creates a truth instantly agreed upon by both players and the DM. It removes a negative process that I've seen both running D&D and playing it: a DM who is making world-building choices in a stressful moment that either reduce player fun or aren't consistent with what has been established so far.

We both know that no matter how much a DM plans, the players are going to ask about things, explore things, and create things that were never considered by the DM in the first place. Just as how random tables have been used in D&D since its inception, the Oracle table supports further world building or difficult decision making without adding to the DM's stress in the moment.

 

[DMZ2112]

Sorry - didn't mean to insult! I wasn't trying to refute anything, your thoughts are valid! However, they also don't invalidate the OP.

I appreciate the apology, and please consider it forgiven and forgotten.

I regret giving the impression that I was trying to invalidate the OP -- the question was "would you use this?" and my answer was no followed by an explanation. I think there's strength and value in the proposal, I just feel like it could be executed better. @overgeeked has given some good suggestions that I lacked the frame of reference to offer.

Yes, that is how I do it now (and for the past almost 40 years). However, I, as the DM, like the idea of not knowing. That is why I find this, or something similar, appealing. I only mentioned sandbox because I thought it fit that style more (and that is how we play), not that you needed it.

And that is absolutely valid. I just got a vibe from the OP (and then you) that there was an implied 'should' here, as regards using RNG in place of DM fiat, and I take that sort of thing seriously. One isn't necessarily better than the other; we should be open to using both as tools when needed. I've got random encounter tables and random weather tables that I use to make my life easier -- I'm not over here insisting on intuiting every world event my PCs encounter, and I'm sorry if I implied that.

I see a growing trend online of folks who think the dungeon master should try to be as close to a CPU as possible when adjudicating the game, and frankly that's nonsense. If the dungeon master enjoys that, great, but if they want to have creative input, they should be encouraged to do so.

Again, if I had the wrong end of the stick, I'm comfortable owning that.

 

[Scribe]

I thought the thread was about the PF1 Oracle class, which I find awesome... lol

 

[DMZ2112]

Hey can you drop this whole "responsibility" angle? I think it's an emotionally-laden approach that's quite unnecessary.

If you can explain why believing dungeon mastery is an important responsibility is an emotionally charged position, I'm willing to at least listen and consider backing off it, but at the moment I'm not understanding you.

To me, the Oracle is nice because it's a collaborative tool that creates a truth instantly agreed upon by both players and the DM. It removes a negative process that I've seen both running D&D and playing it: a DM who is making world-building choices in a stressful moment that either reduce player fun or aren't consistent with what has been established so far.

Sure, and if you or your players don't find that fun, you should dodge it, but own the reason. Use a random generator because it is more fun, not because it solves problems that dungeon master fiat doesn't, or because it keeps players from blaming you for bad outcomes. Because, frankly, neither of those things are true.

For my part? If I'm pressed in the moment and I make a mistake, and that mistake will have repercussions, I just own the mistake when it is brought to my attention or when I realize it on my own, express regret, and introduce retroactive continuity as necessary. It's just a game. I'm not perfect, I don't run a perfect game, and no one expects me to be or do either. No one should expect anyone to. It's unreasonable and unhealthy.

If a player is pressuring a dungeon master to never make mistakes, that's a good example of bad, unhelpful stress that the dungeon master should remove from their life. On the other hand, the stress a dungeon master feels when required to worldbuild under pressure is not bad stress; it's the same stress you feel at the gym, or while completing a chemistry lab in school. It's the body's way of telling us it is learning.

Again, I'm not saying don't use random generators, I'm just saying that they can absolutely force worldbuilding that reduces player fun, or that isn't consistent with established canon, just like rushed DM fiat can. It doesn't solve the problems you propose. The best reason to use random generators is because you like random results -- as @dave2008 puts it, if you like not knowing. They can't do anything else better than your brain can.

 

[Tonguez]

The yes-no-maybe oracle is a bit basic, and is pretty much done now with a quick role 1d6 (1d10 if I want a %)
For me whether though wyvern snatches the dog or the player or something else will be a decision made for dramatic tension, not a random yes-no roll. That dog is an asset, so what will the player be compelled to do? (The reason I like FATE aspects is that dog being snatched up creates a chance for the player to get a mechanical compel via his bond to the dog that extends the story and is hopefully cool)

what I do like from Ironsworn is the Oracle Tables (Chapter 6) and how they can be used to spark ideas eg using the first 4 (non-setting specific) Oracle Tables and number 44 I get Bolster-Faction-Pass-Defended and a twist of you and enemy share the same goal. (ergo Players are sent to bolster a faction at a defended mountain pass >I’ll let the player decide who the Factions are and which faction they support)

and yeah it is very much similar to the GMEmulator. I really appreciate the Kevin Crawfords books for much the same reason.

That looks like a boiled down Mythic GM Emulator. There’s a solo actual play YouTuber who uses it extensively. Me, Myself, and Die.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Personally, I do not like random stuff in D&D, it renders choice meaningless. Turn left? Role for what you encounter. Turn right? Roll for what you encounter. So what's the point in choosing, since it has no effect on the outcome?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I like it as a tool, would I use it? I suppose there could be circumstances in which I and my players could enjoy a tool like this so thank you to @BookTenTiger for bring it to my attention.

Often when I'm asked a question that I have not prepared an answer for, we determine it through the dice - along the lines of odds no, evens yes. The Oracle table is more nuanced which I like.
Is there a loose brick in the dungeon wall? One could roll a skill check for this but I fancy the Oracle in such a situation.

Another instance, say a character gets thrown against a wall by a giant - does the character drop their weapon? In such a scenario I would look to the character sheet (saving throw/skill check) rather than turn to the Oracle.

I'm not sure I would use it for story-generation as I prefer handling those details myself but I can see how if the DM were willing to, for some part of the story, "leave it to the dice" it could be fun. Players create story twists all the time which is enjoyable for the DM as the adventure takes an unexpected turn, so why not let the dice do the same, right?

 

[firekirby135]

In terms of world building, I think there is definitely a value in  curated randomization. But as a tool for mediation? I think I'd consider that ill advised. Compromises and flexibility are much more important to ensuring everyone is having fun at the table. A binary outcome for player/DM or player/player disagreements are significantly  more likely to cause player discontent at the table, not less. (especially when the DM is the one setting the probability in the former) Being able to simply talk through a disagreement in game and come to a resolution everyone is happy with will go a much longer way, and sometimes this  can be resolved with a dice roll, but it should be an agreed upon resolution for all parties involved rather than being taken for granted.

I still do see this as an interesting tool, but at the end of the day, I think it's important to recognize that it's not a replacement for creativity or planning, but a method by which to inspire them. An analogy I always enjoy is, when torn between two decisions, flip a coin. If you look at the result and find yourself happy with the result, go with it! But if you look and find yourself disappointed, go with the other option! Randomization should never supercede creative expression or inspiration, but it can certainly lead to a fun, funky, and unique groundwork to build from!

 

[NotAYakk]

I'd want a better set of oracle mechanics than that. This is just a table?

And one with honestly too much detail.

And a 1% chance of an extreme result/twist seems off.

90%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 10% are the categories for Almost Certain, Likely, 50/50, Unlikely, Small Chance.

That could easily be mapped to 1 in 6, 2 in 6, 3 in 6, 4 in 6, and 5 in 6 without having to roll percentile. But personally, I'd want my Oracle to produce more than yes/no answers.

I want it to say "yes with complications", "no with complications", "no, but it seems yes" and other descriptions in a natural way, but not all the time. And ideally without having to consult a table!

That would be useful mechanics. As it stands, it just says "don't be afraid to roll when you don't know for certain". Which isn't bad advice!