Jeff writes:
> > The fact that once you're over a mastery, you can't fail
> > unless its a contest? Certainly that's why we never use the
> > straight ability test.
>
> Yes. And the fact that if there's no opposition, you should suceed
> anyways.
>
> Certainly the old 'simple contests' were undramatic and
> extremely 'ho hum' - pesonally, if I want a 'simple contest' I
> just set the difficulty low. There's always that chance that
> the thing that 'everybody knows' may be utterly wrong... =)
>
> It works out pretty well in practice. There's more doubt and
> uncertainty out there and we don't roll the dice as often.
I don't really get this: surely a resistance that's above 20
starts cancelling people's masteries, just like a real-live
opponent would, wouldn't it?
You could insist that anyone roll just to check to see if they
have that 5% failure rate (a fumble that then bumps to a
failure), but otherwise, just let them do it and say it happens,
and reserve the dice rolling for resistances that would cancel
the actor's mastery.
Or am I missing something?
V.