To roll or not to roll

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:34:38 +0100 (BST)

• Gianfranco Geroldi <giangero_at_...> wrote:
  > 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.
  

It depends on what you're interested in. Is it *whether* the hero succeeds, or *how* he succeeds?

At the moment, we're playing through one of the Swords players initiating into an extra sub-cult of Humakt. We took a look at the numbers required, decided that he had a reasonable chance of making it and if not would be trained until he had, decided that him failing it would not be fun for anyone, and are now going through the quest without any rolls at all, pure RP. We're learning a lot about the PC and the cult in the process. Every now and then I have to point out that something he's trying is in fact several masteries beyond him, and if he wants to try it he needs to describe what he learns by failing, but we're not rolling any dice at all.

What he tries, and how he reacts to what happens, will determine which of the feats in his new affinity get onto his "standard" list that he can use at -5 in the future. But the fact that he will succeed overall is predetermined, despite it being difficult.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com