Re: Re: Geek Notation

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 17:56:34 +0100


On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:32:18AM -0500, Mike Holmes wrote:
> OK, I get it now. Since, they're bumps, and not Crits, per se.

Exactly; and for the same reason, crits are slightly more likely at higher TNs, even at the same W-level.  

> Hmm. I'd be tempted to call this a success/failure but also to put in an
> "alternating effect" for any off roll in sequence. That is, say I roll an
> 12, and then an 11. This would be a failure with a bump to a success, but
> with some negative extra effect that would be translated as a -1 penalty as
> normal for a Hurt. An 11 followed by a 12 would be a success with a bump
> down to failure, but there would be an additional penalty to the target of
> -1. Yes, this could mean that against an opponent who rolled well that you
> could get two penalties, or vice versa.

Interesting idea; giving one a little more scope for making explicit results of the "we won big, but with a specific down-side" sort. (Or lost big, but with a silver lining.) I might try this, or at least run it by l'equip and see what they reckon.

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail