Oh, hrrmm. Is that the case? I'll admit that sometimes (too often) I turn out to be mistaken about nuance in the rules. But I don't recall anything to that effect in TOR.cuthalion wrote: One big issue here--not really sure this is the way the rules work? Normally repeated tries are not allowed. Forget in the rules where it says this, but it's pretty explicit. So, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the theme of what you're proposing, but I'm not sure you're characterizing the current system accurately.
I think, RAW, if someone fails a roll, the characters are left not knowing about the mushrooms (nothing is there to stop them from trying them anyway). If someone succeeds, they might know various levels of information about the mushrooms, thanks to degrees of success. An ordinary success might let players know they aren't poisonous, but a great success might also suggest that the character knows proper preparation is key to avoiding stomach aches all round.
Additionally, if somebody fails, that's it, there shouldn't be more attempts, except for specific circumstances. The players will be left, in fact, not knowing.
Yes, I agree that's how systems are intended. (And, no, you were not being pedantic in pointing it out. Pedantry is usually in the presentation, not the content.)Per RAW, the dice emulate everything that goes into making that decision, the circumstances, the character's life/background, etc. We are consulting the oracle, as it were, to see how the character acts/reacts. We're not actually needed, as players, to make decisions at that level for our characters.
I know you know all this, but thought it bore reiterating. I still think what you're suggesting is smart.
And I think you understand that my complaint is that RAW, in this game and many others, eliminates the possibility of what could be interesting and more immersive experience.
Well, it's not just about expanding the detail, it's about introducing some tense decision-making. In all honesty where I started from was trying to find a way to cause players whose characters are lost underground to actually start bickering with each other, the way their characters probably would be. But once I started circling around a solution I realized it potentially addressed a whole category of paradoxes in RPGs that has always bugged me. E.g., using Perception/Insight as a lie detector.If I understand you right, you're saying that for circumstances where uncertainty is to be emphasized, we can use this new mechanic to zoom in on and simulate that uncertainty in more detail, much like we do for journeys or combat, and there I'm totally with you.
Well, rolling a success die for each success, and getting a wrong answer if all of those dice come up as 1, is one way of doing that. My concern with that method is that with a great success the odds of a 'false positive' are already way too small. I don't mind an extraordinary success being 'effectively sure', but for this to work I think even a great success should involve some doubt.I like the mechanic you propose, I'm not totally sure which die/combo of dice is best, as stats aren't my strong suit. Personally, I don't much like rolling a feat die and interpreting a chart. I think I like the use of success die more. Rolling one per level of success seems most in line with the theme/existing rules for me, and it's a novel mechanic, which doesn't hurt. The odds there look a bit too tight tho--how do you make a extraordinary success much more reliable, as compared to an ordinary?
Oh...that's interesting. Mathematically it may work out, although I think I have the same problem with it that you and DMW have with the TN. I'm ok raising the TN because it's a decision by the LM before the players even know there's a skill test, and there are lots of other reasons why the TN might be higher, whereas adjusting the modifier seems to be more causal: "because somebody else is doing this, my odds are worse."Lastly, the only other thought I have is on the multiple participants. Again, I wouldn't say multiple people participating raising the TN as you describe it fits the RAW. My suggestion would be to have the effects of multiple participants adjust the Uncertainty die/ce, not the action roll. That can still produce the kind of group uncertainty/conflicts you're going for, and also then eliminates Deadmanwalking's issue with the TNs. Not sure if it gets around the hope spending issue.
Again, this all works just fine if the TNs aren't altered at all. It will just be harder for individuals and easier for groups. Which perhaps is what it should be, anyway.
I literally thought of this last night, so you may very well playtest it before I do. Let me know...Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Would be interested to see some played out examples of this working out. I might try some myself if something appropriate comes up.
Hmmm. That's...logical. And yet it doesn't fall into the three categories of using traits. One could equally say that in general traits should make it more likely that you succeed at any common skill (perhaps reducing the TN) and it would make sense. But that's very intentionally not how traits work.*P.s. One last thought--maybe traits could be invoked when rolling Uncertainy die to somehow affect the results. This would seem to make thematic/logical sense, that a character with a relevant trait is less likely to choose the wrong option.
But maybe there's an interesting application of traits in here somewhere...
P.S. I keep thinking about DMW's assertion that spending a point of Hope could actually make things worse, by which I think he means that without spending Hope you have a 50/50 chance, and with spending Hope you might end up being biased toward an incorrect choice, which seems worse than having a 50/50 chance. This is actually kind of a subtle logic riddle, but I think the fallacy is in giving the uninformed choice 50/50 odds and then comparing it to a single possible outcome of the informed choice. Yes, in some cases you might have been better off not spending Hope, but averaged over all cases it's an improvement. Nevertheless, I still kind of like the idea of applying a positive modifier to the secret roll, just because it creates that incentive to spend Hope even when you've already succeeded. (Which is kind of like the "magical result" effect of Wondrous Artefacts.)