Re: One System to Rule Them All (Was: Re: [WorldofGlorantha] Re: How Much Rule fiddling Is Tolerable?)

From: L.Castellucci <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:22:02 -0400

On July 27, 2007 05:30 am, John Machin wrote:
> On 27/07/07, L.Castellucci <lightcastle_at_...> wrote:
> > Then to me that means in your games, it is almost always dramatically
> > appropriate. I just find it annoying to have to figure out if someone's
> > lockpicks are +1 or +5 when I can just assume she has appropriate
> > lockpicks.
>
> Well, I can only really talk about my games, can't I? I am not in any
> games that I am not in afterall.

Of course. :-)

(It wasn't a criticism.)

> I assume that "appropriate" tools are +3, which might be a rule of
> sorts too. I actually also use equipment degradation as balance to
> "marginal success" rolls - i.e. you pick the lock on the cupboard
> containing the finance wizard's books but you damage your picks in the
> process...

I like the "marginal success means you get your goal but get a setback" approach. (I certainly have used it.)

Ultimately, I think equipment bonuses are a style and preference thing. I don't like having to add a +3 for "appropriate equipment" almost all the time (the right clothes, the proper lockpicks, a decent rope, etc. etc.). I'd rather use the rating as is and if the situation makes me go "oh, you should so get a bonus for that" then add it in.

I think it is just a question of which seems easier in your head.

LC