Quote from: blakkieBasically you are saying is a good way to play, but that you'd rather have rules that told you something different?  Gee, that sounds to me like you think it is fundemantally sound to play with that rule, but you don't seem to want your RPG rule cluttered up with rules that work well and would rather have in their place rules that needed to be changed to function for you?

I agree with blakkie and Wil here.  If it's something which is what good people do, then it's a good fucking rule.  What -- the rules aren't supposed to say when you should roll the dice or how often you should roll the dice?  What the hell?  That's what rules do.  

Repetitive rolls are, in my opinion, just plain stupid.  They eat up time when you could just fold the difficulty into a single roll.  And yet time and time again, I see both real GMs and published rules specifically call for repetitive rolls.  Often there will be a section specifically encouraging repetitive rolls, saying that if you want to make a task more "dramatic" (or somesuch) you should force the player to roll a bunch of times and collect up successes.  

For example, the rules in D&D say that you roll a Climb check for every move action.  So climbing up a wall is a roll every 15', and if people want to climb up a 90-foot cliff, they have to make six rolls.  The rules tell you when and how often to roll.  You might tell me that good GMs don't do this -- but then the rules should say that.  

The Burning Wheel rules say something different.  They say you should only roll one Climb check regardless of how tall the wall/cliff/whatever is.  If it's taller, then that should add to the difficulty of the roll and the time to complete it rather than making people roll over and over again to see if they fail.  Now, there might be better ways of phrasing that rule or of eliminating repetitive rolls -- but that's an extra improvement.

Quote from: blakkieBasically you are saying is a good way to play, but that you'd rather have rules that told you something different?  Gee, that sounds to me like you think it is fundemantally sound to play with that rule, but you don't seem to want your RPG rule cluttered up with rules that work well and would rather have in their place rules that needed to be changed to function for you?

No I'm saying I don't really mind if something I already do is codified in the rules and the rules work well. Because the ones that don't get changed anyway, so if I don't like them telling me how to play the game I just ignore it anyway. Kind of like how I am with Exalted combat - we don't play using all of the combat rules. It doesn't bother me that the rules I don't use are there because it was my choice not to use them in the first place.

Quote from: blakkie@Consonant Dude

Basically you are saying is a good way to play, but that you'd rather have rules that told you something different?  Gee, that sounds to me like you think it is fundemantally sound to play with that rule, but you don't seem to want your RPG rule cluttered up with rules that work well and would rather have in their place rules that needed to be changed to function for you?

No, no. I'm saying I understand (and share) Pundit's lack of enthusiasm for the rule. I think it's a decent rule but am basically disappointed that some gamers need such obvious stuff to be pointed out to them.

I personally don't need it nor am I impressed by it because we handle dice rolling just fine in my groups but I certainly don't object to the presence of this "rule" in a RPG.

The wording of the rule does seem a little confusing to me. I would have prefered GM advices instead of a rule. But it's an ok rule.

Quote from: jhkimRepetitive rolls are, in my opinion, just plain stupid.  They eat up time when you could just fold the difficulty into a single roll.  And yet time and time again, I see both real GMs and published rules specifically call for repetitive rolls.  Often there will be a section specifically encouraging repetitive rolls, saying that if you want to make a task more "dramatic" (or somesuch) you should force the player to roll a bunch of times and collect up successes.  

For example, the rules in D&D say that you roll a Climb check for every move action.  So climbing up a wall is a roll every 15', and if people want to climb up a 90-foot cliff, they have to make six rolls.  The rules tell you when and how often to roll.  You might tell me that good GMs don't do this -- but then the rules should say that.  

The Burning Wheel rules say something different.  They say you should only roll one Climb check regardless of how tall the wall/cliff/whatever is.  If it's taller, then that should add to the difficulty of the roll and the time to complete it rather than making people roll over and over again to see if they fail.  Now, there might be better ways of phrasing that rule or of eliminating repetitive rolls -- but that's an extra improvement.

Jesus, is this what's gotten' some folks knickers in a twist. Man, I've been doing stuff like this for years. It never ceases to amaze me, a designer puts something down in his book  - sometimes something most gamers have been doing for years - and all of a sudden there is a shit storm of controversy .

Sometimes I let it roll, sometimes I do not. For me it's a pacing issue :shrug:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jhkimRepetitive rolls are, in my opinion, just plain stupid.  They eat up time when you could just fold the difficulty into a single roll.  And yet time and time again, I see both real GMs and published rules specifically call for repetitive rolls.  Often there will be a section specifically encouraging repetitive rolls, saying that if you want to make a task more "dramatic" (or somesuch) you should force the player to roll a bunch of times and collect up successes.  

For example, the rules in D&D say that you roll a Climb check for every move action.  So climbing up a wall is a roll every 15', and if people want to climb up a 90-foot cliff, they have to make six rolls.  The rules tell you when and how often to roll.  You might tell me that good GMs don't do this -- but then the rules should say that.  

The Burning Wheel rules say something different.  They say you should only roll one Climb check regardless of how tall the wall/cliff/whatever is.  If it's taller, then that should add to the difficulty of the roll and the time to complete it rather than making people roll over and over again to see if they fail.  Now, there might be better ways of phrasing that rule or of eliminating repetitive rolls -- but that's an extra improvement.

As you so rightly state in this text - this is your opinion. Is it not possible that others feel that in order to better serve emulation that rolling for every 15' makes the most sense? And to others, emulation might very well be served by the method you suggest - rolling once and letting height/distance follow accordingly?

You're arguing taste and, quite frankly, to tell someone they are "just plain stupid," even if it is prefaced by it being your opinion, is a bit beneath you.

Quote from: David RJesus, is this what's gotten' some folks knickers in a twist. Man, I've been doing stuff like this for years. It never ceases to amaze me, a designer puts something down in his book  - sometimes something most gamers have been doing for years - and all of a sudden there is a shit storm of controversy .

Sometimes I let it roll, sometimes I do not. For me it's a pacing issue :shrug:

Regards,
David R

Bingo, David. Same with Bangs. I've been doing  them for decades - I just didn't have a fancy name for them. Not that I invented them - I got the idea from the guy who taught me how to run D&D, some 29 years ago. He must've gotten them from someplace. He never claimed to invent them either.

-clash

Quote from: James J SkachAs you so rightly state in this text - this is your opinion. Is it not possible that others feel that in order to better serve emulation that rolling for every 15' makes the most sense? And to others, emulation might very well be served by the method you suggest - rolling once and letting height/distance follow accordingly?

You're arguing taste and, quite frankly, to tell someone they are "just plain stupid," even if it is prefaced by it being your opinion, is a bit beneath you.

Hm.  Do you actually prefer a long series of climbing rolls, or is this hypothetical?  

My words may be overly harsh, but it's one of the points of design which I feel strongly about.  There are some things which I've seen work reasonably well for others even if I don't like them.  However, there are several things which I am not convinced there is any worth to.  

For example, the one I dislike most is probably linear pre-plotting -- i.e. GM advice which suggests the GM prepare a sequence of scenes to shuttle players from one to the next.  There are several games which explicitly suggest this (and a few people who advocate it).  However, as far as I can tell, players always at best tolerate it by having the GM be really entertaining otherwise.  

However, repetitive rolls are high on the list after that if not second.  (I guess it depends whether I consider omniscient NPCs as being in the same category of problems.)

Quote from: jhkimHm.  Do you actually prefer a long series of climbing rolls, or is this hypothetical?

Depends on the situation. if I thought about it, I guess I prefer whatever best serves the set of issues at hand - including emulation, pacing, etc.

I mostly play D&D, though I'm starting to look at some newer systems. I can tell you that when I read systems, what floats my boat first is how well it instantiates emulation without getting too crunchy.

Does that help?

Or were you really attempting to say that I can't talk because I'm somehow unqualified to speak about the subject due to lack of playing this or that way?

Cause that just smacks of elitism - which, from my experiences reading your stuff, is not your style.

John, I don't think comparing Let it Ride to a D&D rule that says to roll every 15' is quite getting at the difference. The D&D rule may be poorly engineered, but it's basically the same as letting a single roll "ride" all the way up the wall--in that there's a fixed probability of success you can calculate at the beginning of the climb. (I.e., chance of one success raised to the nth power.)

If Let it Ride means anything then I have to think it's more along the lines of preventing the use of repeated die rolls to filter out results that somebody doesn't want, or to guarantee results somebody does want.

The problem here is that some people are so used to the idea of the GM steering a game in this fashion through iterative/extended resolution, that they don't trust games without explicit stakes and scene-at-a-time resolution.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe problem here is that some people are so used to the idea of the GM steering a game in this fashion through iterative/extended resolution, that they don't trust games without explicit stakes and scene-at-a-time resolution.

It always seems to come down to issues of trust.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt always seems to come down to issues of trust.

-clash

Yeah, exactly. I'm not knocking any games here ( and I don't mean to derail this thread). But I've always found that if rules are needed to encourage/sustain trust, something's obviously rotten in Denmark...if you get my meaning..

Regards,
David R

Yeah, although I should say that the "let it ride"/scene-at-a-time approach has benefits in itself, simply by streamlining things and allowing the scale of action to focus on what the group finds interesting. Unless one is very careful about the use of modifiers to adjust difficulty based on the scale of action attempted, I don't think it's as realistic as, say, drawing up a map of the enemy camp and establishing rules for each guard's "detection range" or whatever, but it's a heck of a lot simpler when the group isn't really interested in that kind of tactical detail.

When should you roll? When it makes sense to.

Bob the Sneaky Guy decides to go talk with the goblin chief. His player decides Bob is going to walk straight into the goblin camp and up to the chief's tent. This is a bluff, and it works (a good roll). The goblins who see him walking into camp assume he's part of their group (humans'll work for anybody), and go about their business.

Now, could there be anybody who might be suspicious of Bob? Of course. One of the chieftan's henchmen is a suspicious sort and decides to investigate this new guy.

Grognak the Henchman grills Bob the Sneaky Guy, and the two decide that the goblin chieftan really does need to hear what Bob has to say. Basically Bob is convincing (Bob's player rolls well), but Grognak doesn't fall for it (the GM rolls well too), but decides that what Bob has to say needs to be heard by the boss.

My point is, when it comes to things like this the rolls should influence actions, not dictate them. Consider the personalities involved, the current and overall situation, and how the respective parties have interacted before.

Quote from: Consonant DudeNo, no. I'm saying I understand (and share) Pundit's lack of enthusiasm for the rule. I think it's a decent rule ....
I personally don't need it nor am I impressed by it because we handle dice rolling just fine in my groups but I certainly don't object to the presence of this "rule" in a RPG.

Then you don't actually share Pundit's level of lack of enthusiam. He decries it as a "stupid" rule.

Quotebut am basically disappointed that some gamers need such obvious stuff to be pointed out to them.

*shrug* People talk about aiming games for kids. About aiming towards bringing people into gaming. Well where are they going to learn? Sometimes via a mentor. But, with kids especially, they are learning by reading the rules. What comes first, learning how to play or changing the rules around?

I'm disappointed that so few game designers craft and polish their rules to fit naturally with fundamentally sound play, and instead leave it up to their customers to finish the job by rewriting rules. Copping some "well they are just guildlines, don't do as I say" just doesn't pass mustard for me. I personally feel that propagating that sort of attitude, born from necessity during past development of RPGs, that it's laudable to not polish rules just encourages sloppy products.

EDIT: I will add though that D&D 3e does get a bit of a pass from me in this particular aspect since they have Take 10/Take 20 that helps some (in a "distant cousin" sort of way), and the game is targeted more towards a dungeon crawl style games. But the game is used/marketed enough for other style senarios that it wouldn't have been out of line to add a bit more polish in this area. Hey, apparently some game used this sort of concept a couple of years before so they wouldn't nessesarily even have to come to the conclusion themselves. Although the people involved in D&D might have not been aware of the exact rules of that game, and trying to fit it in might not have been smooth. In a lot of ways 3.5/3e is pretty damn polished, it certainly was for it's time.

Quote from: WilNo I'm saying....

Sorry, that was a confusing way for me to lay that post out. The part you quoted was directed to Consonant Dude, not you.