What is the 'lowest roll' to which the +3s for failure are added, in the case when some of the contestants have a mastery?
I toyed with making it the 'lowest roll' with -20 for each level of mastery. But this makes a gaggle of masters barely better than a lone master.
> So, if we use the example from p.128, but with the difference
> that, say, Kallai and Rollo are masters. Kallai's success (with a roll of 6),
> would have been a critical, and Rollo's failure a success, so their total would
> be 9 (6 as the lowest roll plus 3 for Rurik's failure), but still counting the
> best result, Kalli's crit.
What if one roll is a crit and there are many failures? with you proposal, the failures have no effect, because the crit remains.
> The opposition would still get 5, the lowest roll of
> their succeses, but a measly success. A critical vs. a success is a minor
> Now, if both sides have multiple masteries and can be counted on to produce
> nothing but crits and successes, I'd go for reducing them all with the lowest
> common denominator.
Yes, I would do the same. And this works OK when everyone has the same level of mastery. That is why I specifically asked what happens when members of one side have different levels of mastery.
> You definitely don't want somebody with no applicable ability on your
> side, say a character with no Strength-related ability when trying to lift a
> log, as he only has an ability of 6, and will likely add 3 to your total ;-)
A Group simple contests is probably a poor mechanic for that particular example. Some form of AP lending or augmentation might be better.
Powered by hypermail