No need to apologize. I'm actually interestedin the discussion, just not in this thread.

Quote from: RPGPunditWouldn't "having to pick another lock" be a change in situation? I mean if not, shit, why not just have every player roll each possible skill/attribute just ONCE and then dispose with dice forever?

But if that is a new situation, why the fuck wouldn't be "having to sneak past another guard" be a change in situation? And if so, basically the "let it roll" rule is fucking meaningless, because it doesn't actually change anything from how (normal, well-adjusted) people normally play.

RPGPundit

You're right - all it does is put down on paper in a no-nonsense way the way that most people play, which is to make rolls when it makes sense to, no more and no less. Some people are stupid enough to need that sort of thing spelled out for them, as evidenced by threads I've seen where people say they've played X game for years and never once thought they could change Y, when Y is common sense for everyone (these are usually the same people that claim they have been psychologically damaged by rules systems).

Otherwise, why not have the PC make a DEX check for every footstep they make? That's a change in situation - marbles can roll from nowhere and get under their feet! Why not have the PC make the roll to grab the horse's reins, then a roll to put one foot in the stirrup, then another roll to hoist themselves up, then another roll to plant their ass in the saddle. Hell, they should all be seperate skills!

"Let it Ride" (which I think is what the rule is actually called) I think is more about setting the baseline with the roll. Unless the new lock is more difficult than the last, or the new guard is much more alert than the last - why waste time rolling again? It's saying, "You snuck past the two hyper-alert, hopped up on goofballs guards in the entire camp getting in...why roll to sneak past the one that's asleep?" or "You picked this super complicated lock to get into this safe, why roll to pick the flimsy hasp lock on the box that's inside?".

Quote from: James McMurrayNo need to apologize. I'm actually interestedin the discussion, just not in this thread.

I'd be interested in discussing the rule if I thought I'd get a meaningful thoughtful discussion out of RPGPundit. But given his past performances, and his predisposition to ham it up in some perverse clown show, that's a longshot at best.

His "it's a bad rule because the GM should be able to tell you to roll whenever he/she feels like it" is a total fucking red herring.  He's dragging something else into the argument like some dipshit ideologue arguing about abortion on a car repair board.  The clown has baggage, will travel.

Quote from: SettembriniDo I want to know what a rimjob is?

If you don't know already then likely not.

EDIT: Oops, too late I see.

QuoteI'd be interested in discussing the rule if I thought I'd get a meaningful thoughtful discussion out of RPGPundit.

Oh get the fuck over yourself.  You have no more interest in "meaningful discussion" than the Pundit does.  You're just here to bait him.  That's all you're ever here to do.

We get it.  You think he's an idiot/douche/etc.  So do most of the rest of us, myself included, but somehow we manage to be productive members of the site, instead of spending our every last post baiting it's owner.

Quote from: Wil"Let it Ride" (which I think is what the rule is actually called) I think is more about setting the baseline with the roll. Unless the new lock is more difficult than the last, or the new guard is much more alert than the last - why waste time rolling again? It's saying, "You snuck past the two hyper-alert, hopped up on goofballs guards in the entire camp getting in...why roll to sneak past the one that's asleep?" or "You picked this super complicated lock to get into this safe, why roll to pick the flimsy hasp lock on the box that's inside?".

Actually, based on the description in the Burning Wheel rules, suddenly walking past a more alert guard isn't grounds for a "significant change in the situation" - you are still, fundamentally, trying to sneak into the camp. It cuts both ways - you might think you're in the clear when the first two guards don't see you, but the guy with the spirit familiar who warns him of danger? He's going to see you.

....moved to new thread...

Quote from: blakkieOh what the hell, I'll give the clown another shot....

There's a whole new thread for this topic.  Kindly take it there instead.

Y'know another rule I like?  "Too much is too much," from Teenagers From Outer Space.  It basically says that if you blow past the difficulty for a roll by a sufficiently high margin, the GM is allowed to take your good consequences and twist them into something terrible.  The girl you asked out on a date?  She likes you.  Likes you way too much!  She'll never let you out of her sight!  She'll attack any other girl you look at!  You've got to get rid of her!

Man, that's fodder for good, solid comedy, I tell ya that.

Quote from: WarthurActually, based on the description in the Burning Wheel rules, suddenly walking past a more alert guard isn't grounds for a "significant change in the situation" - you are still, fundamentally, trying to sneak into the camp. It cuts both ways - you might think you're in the clear when the first two guards don't see you, but the guy with the spirit familiar who warns him of danger? He's going to see you.

That jives with my understanding...which is that the main point of sneaking into the camp is to get to the chieftain. The conflict isn't between you and the guards, it's between you and the chieftain - so you compress/streamline the portions that happen in the interim. I, as a player, despise GMs that make me repeatedly roll for the same shit when I just want to get on with the ass-whupping. As a GM, I don't want to force the players to reroll for the same shit over and over again because I know they get frustrated. Like I pointed out - it's nothing that reasonable people probably don't already do. It's just codified into BW's rules.

Quote from: J ArcaneOh get the fuck over yourself.  You have no more interest in "meaningful discussion" than the Pundit does.  You're just here to bait him.

Typically my motivation when I address his posts is to try stanch the blatant disinformation.  Although admittedly I'm inclined to and give into the urge to tell to just STFU, which is why I apologized.

QuoteThat's all you're ever here to do.

Really? Care to review my posts for the last 24 hours?

Quote from: TonyLBY'know another rule I like?  "Too much is too much," from Teenagers From Outer Space.  It basically says that if you blow past the difficulty for a roll by a sufficiently high margin, the GM is allowed to take your good consequences and twist them into something terrible.  The girl you asked out on a date?  She likes you.  Likes you way too much!  She'll never let you out of her sight!  She'll attack any other girl you look at!  You've got to get rid of her!

Man, that's fodder for good, solid comedy, I tell ya that.

Actually, I think it's a great rule even for serious games. I had an idea for a resolution mechanic that was mildly inspired by that - you always want the roll to be as close to the target number as possible, because if you roll too high you can oversucceed (for lack of a better word). I just have to figure out to handle attribute bonuses or whatnot; I was thinking some weird stuff about absolute values (the attribute always pushes the roll towards the target number, whether the initial die roll would be a failure or a success).

Quote from: WilLike I pointed out - it's nothing that reasonable people probably don't already do.

See how easy that is to do?

Quote from: droogSee how easy that is to do?

Conversely, why is it bad to make it part of the rules if reasonable people already do it? I mean, that's generally how rules get made in the first place - reasonable people already behave that way, so there is a consensus that this is something that everyone should do. They become rules because of the unreasonable people who don't behave that way.

Hey droog, did you post a rule that you liked, and I just missed it?  Or are you, too, accidentally jumping in to derail the thread?

C'mon, folks, I'd like to think that there is enough interest in enjoying games that it can at least maintain a voice in the face of all the concerted effort here toward hating games.  2007 is a whole new year ... do my faith in human nature a good turn, would'ja?

I can't think of a best. I can think of lots of rules I like a lot, but I can't seem to stratify them at that end.

Is 'let it ride' a rule or a principle?