It sort of depends on what you mean by "rolling too well" - *any* system will break down if the GM rolls all criticals, or all "better successes" than the players. There's nothing in a set of rules to control your dice.
"Better success" may mean a disconnect between the players' and resistance target numbers - but if the Resistance was supposed to be high, the players should be liable to lose. If the resistance was low, but you just were rolling better, than there's nothing you can do short of executing your dice "pour encourager les autres" and seeing if a new set will roll "correctly"
> So my question is, as currently written, is it correct to adjust
> resistances within an extended contest? Alternately, is the contest
> supposed to be static throughout? I am interested in the intent of the
> rules as opposed to a 'do whatever feels right' response.
Well, I'm going to be totally unhelpful, then. You certainly *may* do so, and no HQ police are going to show up to stop your game. As to how it's "supposed" to be, I say "who cares?". Once the book is in your hands, What Robin or David *intended* is moot. How you play the game is what is important. If you find that you have to "break a rule" then do so.
If it's fun, you're doing it right.
If it's not fun, adjust so that it becomes fun, then you're doing it right.
But any game that includes dice rolls will, sometimes, frustrate one side or the other with a set of "bad" rolls, and there's really nothing you can do about it. it doesn't matter if you're playing an RPG, Monopoly, Yahtzee or Risk. So the players may just have to live with their frustration.
RR
He was born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad
R. Sabatini, Scaramouche
Powered by hypermail