> IMG, I make the players roll only if I consider that
> the possibility
> of failure (or success) make the story interesting
> (if not, why
> roll?). So, if the player fail the roll, well, I
> describe the defeat
> and we continue narrating.
I do appreciate this approach, in theory.
And YGWV etc. etc.
But usually in practice I refer to this fact: make the
player roll if he is trying something difficult.
A trivial attempt requires no roll, but if the story requires a certain difficult ritual to succeed and the player character is not entitled to expect a positive outcome from a roll of his skills, then the *story* is flawed. Skills and challeges are unbalanced. I mean: what's the point in playing more or less experienced heroes if the story is all that matters?
> So, you failed the Opening ceremony but you realised
> that you failed
> because the sea gods are angry, so you have to
> organise a propiciatory
> sacrifice, you need to find the ritual components, a
> priest, etc., and
> then you could roll another time (with a penalty).
> You can't lock the
> door but you could destroy it or look for the key,
> or look for your
> god's help (you realise that you could improvise a
> feat or use an
> affinity as an augment).
I agree, but that *is* different from saying: the story requires that the lock be opened or the sea be sailed so don't bother rolling if you can't stand a failure.
Ciao,
Gian
Powered by hypermail