Quote from: jhkimWell, comparing Let It Ride to D&D climbing is getting at the difference between Let It Ride and other systems -- which I thought was the topic.  And no, I don't think that sitting there rolling over and over again is the same as rolling once, because, well, you have to sit there rolling over and over.  That's the difference which I'm talking about.  
[...]The Let It Ride rule means that you don't make repetitive rolls on the same skill.  That's what it is as a mechanic.  That has meaning.  You might have a problem with the attitude which someone takes when they talk about the rule, or who they trust or whatever -- but that's different from the rule itself.

John, I really think you're missing the point of Let It Ride. Both Let It Ride and a climbing mechanic like D&D provide a well-defined algorithm for determining success. The number of dice rolled isn't the purpose of the rule as stated by the author and fans of the rule. I believe it's spelled out in the book, though I don't have the text in front of me: the purpose is to prevent the GM or player from "asking for do-overs" in order to force the result they want. I had a recent, though fairly benign experience of this in the RQ game I played at the last Endgame mini-con. We needed to wriggle ourselves into the opening of a freshwater spring, against the flow of the current, so the GM had us roll against a stat. Well, I failed. So the GM had me roll again. I failed again. Eventually, the GM just said I made it into the tunnel after struggling for a while; the situation wasn't so tightly time-urgent that we couldn't assume I'd eventually succeed on a roll. (The game improved immensely from there.) A far less satisfying example is the hypothetical I posted elsewhere:

Quote from: hypothetical situationPlayer: I want to get into the treasury using my Sneak skill.
GM: Okay, roll.
Player: (Rolls) Crap, I didn't make it.
GM: [Doesn't want the player to fail.] As you climb along the roof, a loose tile falls and clatters on the ground. A guard is sitting nearby and begins to look up from his post.
Player: I hit the deck and make a sound like a cat meowing. Then I throw a stone to make it sound like the cat is bounding off.
GM: Roll Hide augmented by Mimicry.
Player: (Rolls) Success!
GM: Okay, you're in.

or furthermore

Quote from: hypothetical, continuedThe GM thinks, if the Hide/Mimicry roll fails, I won't have the guard raise the alarm immediately. He'll climb up a ladder, so the PC can get a surprise attack with a thrown dagger.

Essentially, a GM playing improvisationally and who has a specific outcome in mind is able to manipulate the use of resolutions and interpretation to produce that particular outcome. Now, where I disagree with the "Conflict Resolution" fanatics is that they say, if you don't limit the ability of the GM to improvisationally call for additional rolls, then the GM is necessarily going to determine the outcome of the situation via hidden "GM Fiat". I say no: it depends on how the GM approaches his/her responsibility. However, if you do use "Let It Ride", it does guarantee that the success/failure of the player's intent is going to be settled upfront, transparently, with no room for manipulation once the dice hit the table and Artha if any are spent.

If you still don't see how Let it Ride is being touted not merely as method of streamlining resolution but of ensuring the mechanics are "actually used to resolve things", then take a look at this story-games thread and search on the page for "let it ride".

Quote from: James J SkachBut it always strikes me that sometimes people don't even realize how condescending they can appear, even when trying to be polite. I personally think this is why hackles get raised.  And then when the person is called on it - they're baffled as they certainly didn't intentionally mean it that way.

Well, on this board my standards for politeness are considerably looser than they are in some other venues.  It's not that I'm unaware that statements can raise hackles -- just that around here (given founder and host RPGPundit) I expect hackles to be raised regardless.  

Quote from: James J SkachOK, so if you're still reading, my question is:
Since we've agreed that resolution granularity is a matter of taste - how does that impact design? Is it best to choose one and assume that each game will have that one point on the scale? Would we be better served in trying to find a way that allows a single set of rules to slide the scale as needed/desired by the group? Because after all, we're trying to improve gaming and game design, right? Not convince everyone ours is the One True Way...

Mostly, I think that we should have different game designs.  Trying to make one game which will please everyone's tastes is liable to just be mediocre to anyone.