|
Ratpick posted:making it a string of skill rolls to find the clues. You should never roll a die to determine if a player gets a critical piece of information for a mystery in any system, ever. This is a critical take-away for every GM/DM out there. Divide your mystery clues into two categories: critical and flavor. Critical clues never hide behind a die roll (i.e. if the player says "I got to the library and look up plans on the building" you aren't going to have to use Library Use to find out that the building architect, if that's information that important to solving the mystery). Flavor clues are nice things to know that are helpful to solving the case but not essential (for example, immediately knowing that the building architect and the murder victim had an affair because you succeeded on a High Society role or w/e). Players are not handed the critical clues, they still have to interact with the narrative and environment, but the point is that they can't do everything right and then whiff a random roll and have nowhere to go.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
You don't hide them behind the roll, you allow the roll to inform the result. Finding out the architect requires a Use Library roll, on a success, you find out the architect, on a failure, you find out the architect but you leave too much evidence that you did, he finds out and take off, what do you do? (OK, USe Library is a loving TERRIBLE example for fail forward skill rolls, but you get the picture).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You should never roll a die to determine if a player gets a critical piece of information for a mystery in any system, ever. This is a critical take-away for every GM/DM out there. Divide your mystery clues into two categories: critical and flavor. Critical clues never hide behind a die roll (i.e. if the player says "I got to the library and look up plans on the building" you aren't going to have to use Library Use to find out that the building architect, if that's information that important to solving the mystery). Flavor clues are nice things to know that are helpful to solving the case but not essential (for example, immediately knowing that the building architect and the murder victim had an affair because you succeeded on a High Society role or w/e). Players are not handed the critical clues, they still have to interact with the narrative and environment, but the point is that they can't do everything right and then whiff a random roll and have nowhere to go. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this. I partially do. Critical clues can be semi-hidden behind die rolls. That is, the party will always end up getting the clue. The die roll determines what form the clue takes, or how much adversity they face in order to capitalize it. Say the party is checking out a home invasion/burglarly. A successful roll has them find a motel key-card, carelessly left behind by the perpetrator. A failed roll just has them find a business card from that same motel that was used to jimmy open a door. In both cases, they now know a location connected to the burglar. The success gets them straight to the burglar's motel room. The failure means they still have some work to do figuring out which room it is and how to get access to it, especially if nobody in the party is a real cop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Yeah I would say that the die roll shouldn't determine whether a clue is found or not, but rather what the clue costs to find.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You should never roll a die to determine if a player gets a critical piece of information for a mystery in any system, ever. This is a critical take-away for every GM/DM out there. Divide your mystery clues into two categories: critical and flavor. Critical clues never hide behind a die roll (i.e. if the player says "I got to the library and look up plans on the building" you aren't going to have to use Library Use to find out that the building architect, if that's information that important to solving the mystery). Flavor clues are nice things to know that are helpful to solving the case but not essential (for example, immediately knowing that the building architect and the murder victim had an affair because you succeeded on a High Society role or w/e). Players are not handed the critical clues, they still have to interact with the narrative and environment, but the point is that they can't do everything right and then whiff a random roll and have nowhere to go. This is a really good point! Basically, in a given investigation you should give the PCs all the clues they can find with just a bit of effort and investigation, but leave it up to the players to build the context behind those clues. All the so-called flavor clues you can hide behind skill rolls. For an example, if the PCs are investigating a murder scene you should tell them everything that is plain to see: that the victim was murdered by a knife to the throat, that there is a recently opened envelope bearing the seal of an important noble family on the table, and that there's a half-burnt and ineligible letter in the fireplace. Actual rolls should reveal stuff like the knife being having had a serrated edge not unlike those used by a certain death cult (Religion), that the seal is actually just a clever forgery (Nobility, I guess?) and that whoever wanted to burn the letter apparently did so very recently and hurriedly due to the fireplace being still hot and the letter only being half-burnt (Investigation). As you were right to point out, hiding the vital clues behind skill rolls only makes for a situation where the investigation might go cold simply because the PCs didn't roll high enough. EDIT: I mean, I think you can do a mix of both? Most of the clues that are plain to see should be just there, with the rolls giving the clues greater context, OR you find the clue regardless of success or failure but the roll informs how much trouble you get in while snooping around. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:Say the party is checking out a home invasion/burglarly. A successful roll has them find a motel key-card, carelessly left behind by the perpetrator. A failed roll just has them find a business card from that same motel that was used to jimmy open a door. In both cases, they now know a location connected to the burglar. The success gets them straight to the burglar's motel room. The failure means they still have some work to do figuring out which room it is and how to get access to it, especially if nobody in the party is a real cop. The "work" they are going to do is finding another clue that shows where the room is. It's critical information that the party requires to solve the case (because that room will contain another clue, and that clue will lead to another, etc. etc. until you've got enough clues to put together a solution to the mystery) and you're going to give it to them in some form. There's nothing you said that counteracts me, all you've done is rig up a scenario where the characters have to do some more legwork for the information because the dice didn't go their way. Which is your prerogative, of course. The system I'm espousing isn't mine. It's wholesale lifted from Robin D. Law's GUMSHOE system, an A++ Designer who noticed that all the poo poo that you guys are saying about "Want to solve a mystery? Well if the dice come up wrong you can't, unless you get in a fight or do this other thing" is silly and doesn't work very well. The nice thing is that if you read a GUMSHOE book you can easily slot this into your campaign, they even made a GUMSHOE supplement for PATHFINDER. Edit: thespaceinvader posted:You don't hide them behind the roll, you allow the roll to inform the result. Finding out the architect requires a Use Library roll, on a success, you find out the architect, on a failure, you find out the architect but you leave too much evidence that you did, he finds out and take off, what do you do? Congratulations, you've managed to reinvent the D&D 1st Edition signature move, Random poo poo Happens To The Main Plot Solely Because of the Dice: "Your party is taken to meet the King, and he's..." *rolls dice* "...super pleased to meet you!" Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Way to totally miss the point. The point is that the thing you're trying to make happen, happens, but whether it goes well, or goes badly, is what the dice determine. The better example is something like jumping a big gap. Success, you land perfectly on the other side. Fail, you land hanging by your fingertips at the mercy of the monster... what do you do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Now I'm just remembering those god awful 5e games Mearls ran online. "Roll Wisdom to continue the plot! Nobody succeeded? Uh...roll Wisdom again!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Way to totally miss the point. No, you missed the point and quoted back a dumb example (and you're not even arguing with me, really. You're arguing with Robin D. Laws by proxy). The critical difference is that you didn't have to jump the pit. You could have done something else. You chose to jump the pit and gamble on your ability. You don't have a choice in a mystery. You have to find the clues. We don't make characters roll dice to open the door to the next room of the dungeon and decide that if they roll low some more monsters come out and beat them up. You don't make characters roll dice to find the clue. They are just as critical to continuing the plot of a mystery as opening a door to the next room is to continuing a dungeon crawl.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Congratulations, you've managed to reinvent the D&D 1st Edition signature move, Random poo poo Happens To The Main Plot Solely Because of the Dice: "Your party is taken to meet the King, and he's..." *rolls dice* "...super pleased to meet you!" He's also a "brazen" "trollop" who is "dead." Man this game is great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Way to totally miss the point. Exactly. Separating clues between "critical" and "flavor" is a poor distinction, too. The example given, Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Flavor clues are nice things to know that are helpful to solving the case but not essential (for example, immediately knowing that the building architect and the murder victim had an affair because you succeeded on a High Society role or w/e) ,sounds actually pretty critical. I agree that obvious, major bullet points, such as the method of death and the identity of the victim (unless his head is missing or something) shouldn't even be related to a roll- that's just the basic facts. They don't give you a direction to look in, though. Your High Society character trying to remember something scandalous about the victim's affairs, though, gives you a direction. Success gives you the info in Jockstrap's example. Failure makes you recall that he had a major blowout with somebody at a masquerade ball last week, and now you have to go interrogate a bunch of rich people who were wearing masks that night.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:Success gives you the info in Jockstrap's example. Failure makes you recall that he had a major blowout with somebody at a masquerade ball last week, and now you have to go interrogate a bunch of rich people who were wearing masks that night. Sure, and when the players open the door to a room, you roll a die. Success means they go into the room. Failure means they end up in a different room on the other side of the castle and they have to walk through a bunch of other rooms to get there (they still will, of course, but it's fun side jaunt because they failed a die roll). This is about as meaningful as what you're doing. Sorry you're enamored with this bad system you've cooked up because you're obsessed with treating clue-finding, the core experience of a mystery, as just another skill check.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You don't have a choice in a mystery. You have to find the clues. I don't think anyone's arguing with this point. I'm in agreement with you that dice rolls shouldn't determine whether you find a clue or not, but dice rolls could be called for in two situations: 1) To determine at what cost finding the clue comes. You roll Streetwise to ask your criminal contacts for information. Regardless of success or failure you get a clue, but failure in this case represents that your snooping around attracts attention, leading to a procedural (probably combat or social) scene as someone who doesn't want you asking too many questions makes themselves known. 2) To give greater context to the clue, in the form of more specific information related to the mystery. I don't think these two approaches are mutually exclusive, and can be easily mixed and matched depending on what's at stake. I personally like both approaches, but would probably lean towards the former if I was running a hard-boiled noir mystery, because in that particular style the detective always finds the clues (as the players definitely should!) but finding each clue also comes at a cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Sure, and when the players open the door to a room, you roll a die. Success means they go into the room. Failure means they end up in a different room on the other side of the castle. So where is the skill check? The skill entire point of the skill check is to introduce the possibility of narrative complications. If the narrative is about solving a mystery, then it stands to reason that complications that arise are in relation to the PCs' attempts to solve that mystery. Otherwise, what's the point of using a system that involves skill checks? You at this point you are just being a human text adventure, telling the PCs what they find when they look at a thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's not a skill-check using system of roleplaying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:So where is the skill check? The skill entire point of the skill check is to introduce the possibility of narrative complications. If the narrative is about solving a mystery, then it stands to reason that complications that arise are in relation to the PCs' attempts to solve that mystery. Oh goodness. My friend, how did you ever think that I was saying you should use skill checks for finding clues? I'm explicitly against that. Here's a reminder of how I entered this conversation: Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You should never roll a die to determine if a player gets a critical piece of information for a mystery in any system, ever. Here's my advice to you: Get, and run, a Gumshoe game. Get back to me afterwards and tell me if it felt like a Human Text Adventure. Calling not rolling dice to get clues a "Human Text Adventure" is such a bizarre and weird thing to say - and so obviously based in ignorance and paradigm twisted by the d20 system - that I don't want to respond to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
I think we are maybe not on the same page here. I'm saying that if you are running a game that relies on skill checks to determine the degree to which an action or inquiry goes the way a player planned, then in a mystery they should therefore determine whether that player's character got exactly the clue they wanted, or instead ended up with almost that clue that requires further investigation. I agree that that's dumb in a vacuum, but presumably there are other forces at play, such as time pressure or the crime's perpetrator taking further actions in parallel to the players, so unexpected obstacles in the trail of clues force the players to evaluate their course of action, and maybe do something extra risky on a hunch, which is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
It is as simple as "don't even bother with fail forward when it comes to whether they find a critical clue." Feel free to use fail forward everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Here's my advice to you: Get, and run, a Gumshoe game. Get back to me afterwards and tell me if it felt like a Human Text Adventure. Calling not rolling dice to get clues a "Human Text Adventure" is such a bizarre and weird thing to say - and so obviously based in ignorance and paradigm twisted by the d20 system - that I don't want to respond to it. Yes. There are a number of bits of advice that you can use in any game system, and this is one of them. I was running a game of Strike and managed to stop myself just before I said, "No, that roll isn't good enough to smell the incense that would lead you to the next bit of adventure" before I thought, "Wait a loving second, I'm just making work for myself here". The players always find the critical clue. Maybe a bad roll means they find three clues, one of which is tangential and another of which is a red herring, but they always find the critical clue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Don't roll to determine whether the players receive crucial information that advances the plot. Roll if the players can't manage to put together that information into something interesting by themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You don't have a choice in a mystery. You have to find the clues. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:We don't make characters roll dice to open the door to the next room of the dungeon and decide that if they roll low some more monsters come out and beat them up. You don't make characters roll dice to find the clue. They are just as critical to continuing the plot of a mystery as opening a door to the next room is to continuing a dungeon crawl. Splicer fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Sometimes the clue is discovered when the PCs ask around and get the info they need. Sometimes the clue is discovered when the big guy drops a matchbook after beating the living poo poo out of the PCs for asking too many questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I don't think anyone's arguing with this. Considering you keep giving me inapplicable situations with player choices in response I would have to say yes, you are. Edit: Me: stuff about opening the door (which has to happen no matter what) You: stuff about going through the door, making choices on how you go through the door, making the door into a puzzle, disingenuously saying that dungeon crawls are just chock full of dice rolls that happen when you open up the door! (yeah, in D&D 1st edition, which is where a lot of you are stuck re: mysteries) Final thought: if you're quoting me instead of playing GUMSHOE, don't. Just play GUMSHOE. It's rad and good, and will teach you a lot about making good RPG mysteries. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
In a shocking twist, it turns out that a game primarily based around fighting monsters and looting dungeons doesn't come equipped with very many useful tools for running investigative mysteries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
The problem boils down to skill rolls and how skills pretty much shouldn't be rolled on. I think D&D went the wrong way in going to fewer, more important skills than the old 2E NWP setup of a ton of skills that weren't expected to be available to the party at any time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:In a shocking twist, it turns out that a game primarily based around fighting monsters and looting dungeons doesn't come equipped with very many useful tools for running investigative mysteries. Yeah, this. D&D is a game about mostly-human protagonists who go into dangerous enclosed spaces and risk combat with monsters to obtain treasure (usually treasure that makes them better at killing monsters). The further you move away from this paradigm, the more likely D&D is to break into a million irritating pieces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
The worst game of D&D I ever suffered through, was a publish mod at a con where everyone failed the spot check to start the module. The DM* then jerked us around for four hours with nothing. Skill rolls to continue the story was dumb in 1985, it was dumb in 2002 and it is dumb now. Anyone that uses them, or writes a system that has them as a core part of their system needs to hand in their dice and leave the hobby forever. * The DM was one of the designers of 3E, so I will give you three guesses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Sounds like That's probably very true. But at the same time my gamer brain says that if they aren't trying to "win" the game by whatever the current method of doing so is (finding the killer, killing the monsters, etc) then what is the motivation by which they are selecting game actions? I know this was something that was kicked around on the Forge for the while, with its "Creative Agendas", but they never seemed very stable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:
You're supposed to give us the information we need to advance the story. We just went over this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
homullus posted:You're supposed to give us the information we need to advance the story. We just went over this. It's cool, he listened. Guess three times. If you haven't got it right by then, he'll roll a die. 1-2: He'll tell you the answer, but later on he'll try to frame you for the murder of the bartender to discredit you if you try to repeat it. 3-5: He'll beat the poo poo out of you then sneeringly tell you the answer, assuming you're now scared enough that you won't do anything with the information. 6: He'll threaten you a bit and then leave, forgetting to take his notebook which has the answer in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It's cool, he listened. Guess three times. If you haven't got it right by then, he'll roll a die. There were some clever clues in the story itself too. Which of those three would be such a stickler to the rules that they would prefer to shoot down four hours of player suggestions instead of running a mod?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It's cool, he listened. Guess three times. If you haven't got it right by then, he'll roll a die. I'm further outing myself as some kind of unwashed barbarian here, but I still fail to see how that's better than what seems to be the alternative proposed of "read the one and only True Clue from my script and then move on to the next one and only True Clue". Ideally, one of the three scenarios above is at least based on a combination of not rolling well and actually applying to the method one or more PCs was trying to use to procure their information, and isn't just a rando result from a megatable  Edit: Actually, 6 is probably what should happen on a Success, assuming the party was actively trying to get the notebook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:I'm further outing myself as some kind of unwashed barbarian here, but I still fail to see how that's better than what seems to be the alternative proposed of "read the one and only True Clue from my script and then move on to the next one and only True Clue". BAHAHAHA this is literally addressed in the GUMSHOE rules, under "How to deal with arguments from players whose minds have been warped by years of roleplaying systems that are poo poo at doing mysteries and will start objecting to this system before they play it." (paraphrased) That's right, they had to put a section in their rules on winning over players at the table who would immediately reject the system based on nothing more than their own fantasies and years of garbage mechanics that had been internalized. You're not an "unwashed barbarian" you're just ignorant as hell, committing totally unoriginal fallacies that I myself was guilty of before I tried GUMSHOE, and not doing what you were told to do: play GUMSHOE. Edit: Me, On Mystery Games, a Short Play in One Act Me: Of course you need to do skill checks for clues, what sort of person would say otherwise? Me, gets Gumshoe: Well this is interesting but I'm not sure how it's going to work in practice... Me, after playing Gumshoe: Wow the combat isn't very good but the mystery part works great! I'm gonna do it Gumshoe's way forever! THE END Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:I'm further outing myself as some kind of unwashed barbarian here, but I still fail to see how that's better than what seems to be the alternative proposed of "read the one and only True Clue from my script and then move on to the next one and only True Clue". Ideally, one of the three scenarios above is at least based on a combination of not rolling well and actually applying to the method one or more PCs was trying to use to procure their information, and isn't just a rando result from a megatable A success occurs when they guess right / figure it out. Or if you want to frame it in terms of skill checks, a success is where they roll <Find Clue> high enough and therefore guess right or figure it out. Everything after "...if you haven't got it right by then..." is what happens on a failure. Change 6 so the phrase "The guy becomes hostile and..." goes in front of it if you still still don't get it. ocrumsprug posted:There were some clever clues in the story itself too. If there weren't some clever clues in the story, it was a bad mystery to begin with. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
IF you -really- don't want to try the GUMSHOE method, there's the Deadlands: Noir option. This is basically just like the GUMSHOE rule except there's a dice roll attached and if you fail you take damage and/or it costs extra resources to dig up the necessary clue, because presumably you didn't find it but in the very next scene you get roughed up by crooks who assume you found it and provide necessary clue exposition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:IF you -really- don't want to try the GUMSHOE method, there's the Deadlands: Noir option. This is basically just like the GUMSHOE rule except there's a dice roll attached and if you fail you take damage and/or it costs extra resources to dig up the necessary clue, because presumably you didn't find it but in the very next scene you get roughed up by crooks who assume you found it and provide necessary clue exposition. That's not the same thing. That's "failing forward," which really is good advice in general but "costs more/does damage" is STILL putting something between players and a small, vital part of the game. What if the damage they take kills a character? What if they don't have the extra resources? Why is it so hard to let them have just this one thing -- a clue they still have to correctly interpret, by the way, so it's not a total gimme -- and do the fail-forwardy stuff everywhere else? Do they have to roll to see whether their characters successfully eat lunch, and if they fail, they take damage from food poisoning and vomit but it's ok because the restaurant owner feels bad and gives them a new meal so it's ok because they got fed, or do you just let the PCs get lunch so you can move on? The mystery game is not about finding clues, it is about interpreting them, and die rolls should not be involved with clues needed to solve the mystery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Does no one just put multiple clues in their mystery games? It seems like you are asking for trouble either way if there is only one clue instead of a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Does no one just put multiple clues in their mystery games? It seems like you are asking for trouble either way if there is only one clue instead of a bunch. You don't hear about those games because they don't stall out and leave the players confused and frustrated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
It's also totally fine to have consequences other than YOU LOSE for failing to get to the bottom of a mystery. If the PCs don't find the graverobber before the eclipse, they'll find out about his Frankenstein schemes the hard way, along with the rest of the town.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Non mystery chat incoming: I got a two-part adventure coming up being run by one of my best buds who lives out of state. He won't be pulling any punches and definitely runs a balanced game (meaning not combat heavy). Character Creation Rules: 6th level, two uncommon items. Eberron stuff from Unearthed Arcana is a go. So my idea was "Wizbeard" the Wizard who's also a fighter, and trying out the Artificer from the Unearthed Arcana article that I poo poo all over. quote:Mountain Dwarf Wizard (Artificer) 6 With an Athletics of +7, I'm thinking of trying to take advantage of making Potions of Growth via Artificer to pull off the Grapple+Cloud of Daggers combo in at least one fight. Also, with a strict limit on two uncommon items at creation, I'll be able to use a spell slot to make a +1 weapon or armor if I feel the need, giving me a slight edge there. Arcane Recovery should help pad the loss by creating items. Any thoughts on this from you guys? I'd like some feedback on my spell selection in particular. Thanks! Red Hood fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
homullus posted:It is as simple as "don't even bother with fail forward when it comes to whether they find a critical clue." Feel free to use fail forward everywhere else. Sorta; I agree that critical information shouldn't require passing a skillcheck, but I also agree that there should be a skillcheck and that skillcheck should determine what happens while obtaining that clue because that's more interesting. If you want to just tell a story then maybe form a book club instead? As an example if it's plot-critical that you be able to track a guy, then a successful Tracking check means that you catch up to the guy before he reaches his destination whereas a failed Tracking check means that you took too long and something happens as a consequence, but you still ultimately catch up. Failure causes an encounter with the guy's minions, leaving the party with fewer resources when they finally catch up to the guy. You've still suffered consequences for your failure, but the plot moves forward. e: I like this system of rolling dice and having consequences happen when there's a bad roll, even rolling for something like plot development. Other people like systems where plot development never requires rolling dice. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 05:18
|
|
