TheRPGSite

I'm currently playing in a game set in Harn using the Burning Wheel rules.  Our group had been using HarnMaster for a while, in various editions, but despite the jerk-like talk from some BW fanatics, we agreed to give Burning Wheel a try for this campaign.  

One of the features of BW is the "Let It Ride" rule, which basically forbids repetitive rolls on a given skill or stat.  If you made a roll in Stealth, you keep that result for any future uses.  So, why do I like this?  As I expressed in this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144622&postcount=34) on the "Ridiculous armor-wearing" thread, I hate repetitive rolls.  

I don't give a shit if it's to my advantage or not, it's fucking boring.  So if the GM goes "Roll Perception" and then if we fail says "Weeeellll.... Roll Perception again" -- it's stupid!  Either give us the fucking clue that you want to, or get over it and move on.  

For similar reasons, I liked the "Take 10" and "Take 20" rules of D&D3.  They cut back on needless rolling.  In the first D&D3 campaign I played in, there was a point where we were going to search for secret doors and I just said "I take 20".  The GM was at first taken aback and then angry, as though I was cheating somehow.  He tried to emphasize that it would take a long time and that we shouldn't do that because it would be boring for our characters.  

(For reference -- this was inspired by Pundit's "What I've Read (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7795) post where he quoted Malcolm Sheppard's criticism of BW and blindly endorsed it without having read BW.  Malcolm makes a point about how it doesn't really protect the players, and that thus they should really like making repetitive rolls.  Obviously, I disagree.  

There is vagueness in the Let It Ride rule about when the circumstances have changed enough to require a new roll.  I think it could be phrased better, but the thrust of the rule as a whole is still useful for my enjoyment.

You like what you like, John. That is good.

In unrelated news, you don't get it. It's task res vs. conflict res, is what this is about.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou like what you like, John. That is good.

In unrelated news, you don't get it. It's task res vs. conflict res, is what this is about.

OK, so you spouted some jargon at me.  Would you care to explain that in English?  

In particular, do you think there is a problem with the "Let It Ride" rule, as Malcolm and Pundit claim?

The whole problem with it boils down to the vagueness, which extends as well to identifying the "bad" practices that "Let it Ride" is supposed to correct.

If you're trying to infiltrate and then exfiltrate a fortress with sentries outside and guards in important locations, and your path happens to take you across something you didn't know was there...but you'd now like to investigate, making "Let it Ride" work properly ends up requiring essentially the same adjustments as a sensible use of a basic Sneak skill. I.e., for Sneak you only roll once per guard, or per discrete distance or time, but you also adjust for the guard's awareness. For Let it Ride, you increase the obstacle due to multiple opponents, and you roll again when your plan changes because otherwise you have no temptation:risk dynamic.

The difference mechanically is that BW's LiR gives you fewer rolls; is easier to make more "forgiving" of bigger challenges (iterative rolls with "failure = complete failure" is deadly even at 95% skill); is harder to interpret failure in a detailed fashion (where exactly in or out of the fortress are you, when you accidentally alert the guards?). And ultimately it seems about as likely to cause discomfort when the GM deems a situation to have changed and the player thinks otherwise.

In short I think both can work, but non-"let it roll" gets a bad rep due to abusive and handwavey GMing practices that came out of the desire to advance a plot instead of neutrally referee a situation.

As for the GM who balked at letting you "take 20", this is much the same thing, it shows someone who wasn't really prepared to think through the mechanics of the game and the logic of the game world. If I were running a dungeon and someone wanted to "take 20" all the time, that'd be fine, but I'd also be keeping careful track of time for the sake of wandering monster rolls, use of supplies, need for rest & sleep, and any deadlines or other time constraints the PCs were up against.

Quote from: jhkimOK, so you spouted some jargon at me.

You're the Forge regular, John, not me. If you're confused, ask the google.  

Meanwhile, you're a nice and knowledgeable guy, except that when you're dealing with Pundy you devolve into a petty little greengrocer. Why don't you just stay away from the guy and post about some gaming stuff unrelated to him?

I don't care for it myself. It strikes me as a naive bandaid/short cut for the intersection of irresponsible GMs and poorly codified skill rules. Further, it seems to me to nullify opportunities for player creativity.

The system that Luke seems to rant about in BE (sorry, I don't have BW to compare) is that "GMs are mean" and this is just going to keep them from being mean by deciding to force you to fail by invoking multiple rolls. AFAIAC, a better way around this is to clearly define what duration the roll applies for, or conditions that warrant a new roll. Combine that with the concept of GM economy (a concept that BE otehrwise executes well), and there really shouldn't be a problem.

The "player creativity" thing comes in, as I see it, when you fail the roll. When a roll is failed, the players are forced to deal with the consequences of such a roll. That could include applying other skills or coming up with a way that it is practical to retry the roll.

I just find "Let it Ride" ham-handed and impractical.

Let It Ride, much like Say Yes (Or Roll) are things I've taken as general advice but not rules. As rules, they're kind of a pain, but as advice, I get what they're saying and can implement.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAFAIAC, a better way around this is to clearly define what duration the roll applies for, or conditions that warrant a new roll. Combine that with the concept of GM economy (a concept that BE otehrwise executes well), and there really shouldn't be a problem.

Out of curiosity, how would you codify "clearly defin(ing) what duration the roll applies for, or conditions that warrant a new roll" in a set of rules?

We usually just wait for someone to request a re-roll (GM or player), they present their case for significantly changed conditions, and we come to a consensus at the table as to whether or not a new roll is warranted. I can see how that method could be problematic, but it hasn't been with my group in about two years of playing BW.

QuoteThe "player creativity" thing comes in, as I see it, when you fail the roll. When a roll is failed, the players are forced to deal with the consequences of such a roll. That could include applying other skills or coming up with a way that it is practical to retry the roll.

This is spot on, in my experience.

I'm about options.  The "let it ride" approach is one I use for the perennial troublesome checking for traps, sneaking down a long hallway etc.  Here a few others.  These are all at the players choice.

(1) Let the player roll for every YxY space or Y feet of corridor to exercise the skill.  We rarely exercise this option as it is incredibly dull to all of us.  

(2) One roll for the whole, corridor, room etc.  I'll make clear what this applies to just let me know if you do it.

(3) Three rolls.  I will randomly determine which one I will apply to the area or location with an actual trap or something to sneak past/hearing roll of teh creature.  Or you arrange them in any order you like to represent the front-middle-back of the area.

To forstall too much metagame knowlege, yet give the character an inkling if they did good or bad...the player rolls one die and I roll one die in secret.
Since the system adds the roll of 2D10, roll under a target to succeed the character gets some knowledge of how they did but not absolute.

For example, when sneaking, the PC rolls a 1.  They know odds are they are likely to make it, they move with barely a wisper.  Conversely if the PC rolls a 10, they may have stepped on a twig.  They don't know if they blew it but this info may get them to rethink there tactics.

I'm all about you tell me how you want to do it.

I have better ways of indicating the passage of time and the down side of taking too much than forcing many rolls.  Like rolling for wandering monsters, even when there isn't any.  Nothing like when I say, OK that will take 4 hours and I get 4D6 out to do a wandering monster check.   I'll roll these in secret, just a very quick way to get across that soemtimes taking time is a bad idea, othertimes it si not.  How do players know?  Knowledge is power in my games so a bit of scouting and investigation can pay big dividends.  


Anyway, that's how I roll.

Quote from: TimOut of curiosity, how would you codify "clearly defin(ing) what duration the roll applies for, or conditions that warrant a new roll" in a set of rules?

I think that would really depend on the game and the designer's priorities. Some games might have some reasonable measure of time or some other conditional considerations if they wish to simulate reality. Other games might rely on some sort of GM economy, such as spending "harass the players points" to create risk.

Wow.  I've been using 'Let it ride' for years now.  Didn't know that somebody put it into a game.  Just seemed like common sense to me.  You failed to pick the lock, so until you do something to change the situation (use a different set of tools, come back a year later with more experience, etc) you don't get to reroll for it.  In situations where there is something that the players need to see to keep going I'll have them roll vs intell or something, the person who rolls best under (or if they all roll over then the one who got closest) is the one who spots it.

Plus the take 10 or 20 from D20 is also great.  Used the hell out of that when I played.  Just makes sense.

Quote from: peteramthorWow.  I've been using 'Let it ride' for years now.  Didn't know that somebody put it into a game.  Just seemed like common sense to me.  You failed to pick the lock, so until you do something to change the situation (use a different set of tools, come back a year later with more experience, etc) you don't get to reroll for it.

Well, it goes a bit beyond that, actually. Say you're trying to infiltrate the thieves guild headquarters...you'd make one Stealth roll at the beginning, and would Let it Ride through the entire scene. You'd have to apply that same roll to all challenges within that scene. Say you get four successes...that's great versus the run of the mill footpads milling about with their Observation skill of 3d, but not such a sure thing against the master of assassins with his Observation of 6d.

Of course that cuts both ways...the GM would hold to one roll for the underlings and one roll for the assassin guy.

Tim

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think that would really depend on the game and the designer's priorities. Some games might have some reasonable measure of time or some other conditional considerations if they wish to simulate reality. Other games might rely on some sort of GM economy, such as spending "harass the players points" to create risk.

I guess my question was kind of useless without being tied to a specific game. Assuming you've read or played the game, how would you de-hammify Let it Ride in Burning Wheel?

Tim

P.S. That's not some sort of sideways slam saying "you can't understand the game because you've never played it." You seem to have a good grasp of Let it Ride, to me.

Quote from: TimI guess my question was kind of useless without being tied to a specific game. Assuming you've read or played the game, how would you de-hammify Let it Ride in Burning Wheel?

Again, only own BE, but judging from BE, it seems like the "scene economy" is a founding principle of the game and it has a sort of gamist bent than being concerned about modeling reality. So I think that some sort of GM resource that would dictate challenges could be mustered to be applied to the same or different skills, as is appropriate.

Since Luke Crane has apparently all but admitted that the rule is there to deprotagonize GMs, and since the Forgies out there tend to take pride in this fact, I don't see where the point for argument is, or on what basis someone could say that isn't the real intent of the rule.

Also, Eyebeamz statement on it just seems like common sense; not only does it deprotagonize the GM by taking away his right to decide when players should make a roll, it also doesn't do players any favours; all of which reveals a fundamental secret of RPG games that the Forgies consistently fail to understand:  that usually, the GM is the guy looking out for the players, and not trying to screw them over.

There may be some tyrannical GMs, but those are BAD GMs.  Meanwhile, trying to solve this problem by removing the powers of GMs (good and bad) and replace it with tyrannical rules made up by idiot game-designers is a piss-poor "solution".


RPGPundit

Let's set aside the bashing of Luke Crane and his litle biases, as enjoyable as that is, and just look at the ideas themseves.

First up, I call "Let It Ride" a guideline rather than a rule because I think of a "rule" as something fairly clear and precise, like, "broadswords do 1d8, broadswords of fine quality which cost twice as much do 1d8+2." This is more of a guideline, something to guide the GM in play.

Quote from: jhkimOne of the features of BW is the "Let It Ride" rule, which basically forbids repetitive rolls on a given skill or stat.  [...] why do I like this?  [...] I hate repetitive rolls.  

[...]

There is vagueness in the Let It Ride rule about when the circumstances have changed enough to require a new roll.  I think it could be phrased better, but the thrust of the rule as a whole is still useful for my enjoyment.

I think this vagueness is natural, but is also the source of the "Let It Ride" guideline in the first place. It comes from the enormous variation in things that can happen in a game session.

It's often difficult for GMs to know how many dice rolls to ask for. Combat in most game systems is wel-structured and detailed, so it's easy there. But what about stealth? Diplomacy? If your character offended someone, do they get to try again? If they failed to pick the lock,  does that mean they can't try again until they learn something more (the AD&D1e answer: "not until next level"), or can they just tinker away with it until they get it?

On one extreme we get the GMs who ask for new rolls constantly. This makes skill level unimportant, because if you roll enough times eventually you'll fail; a skill of 64% rolled eight times where one failure makes the other successes irrelevant is equivalent to a skill of 1% rolled once.

On the other extreme we'd have "okay, everyone is 1st level, now make a roll to see if you slay the dragon, make it to 7th level and become wealthy lords."

Here we should also consider what level of abstraction and player input we want. "I use my Lifting skill to crank open the stuck door... damn, failed the roll. Hey, how about I use the crowbar? Can I get another roll?" If you want to abstract things, then you'd say, "no, because part of Lifting skill is knowing to use a crowbar - you already used it without saying." If you want to encourage player imagination, then you'd say, "okay, that gives you +10, roll again." That's good, but taken too far can lead to players rolling and rolling until they get what they want - this time making not skill levels but the dice rolls irrelevant.

Between those extremes, it's reasonable to suppose that each roll is one use of a skill which applies until something changes. So if you were trying to pick the lock while under fire, you get one roll only; but if you come back to it later, and have hours and hours to do it while consulting a manual, okay you can have another roll.

Quote from: peteramthorWow. I've been using 'Let it ride' for years now. Didn't know that somebody put it into a game. Just seemed like common sense to me.

On the whole the good work of the Forge has been to put into words things which people did already; the bad work has been to pretend this was revolutionary. I think it's good to try to express concisely what lots of people are already doing, it helps make it clear in our minds and reminds us to do it. Sometimes we forget.

Quote from: TimWell, it goes a bit beyond that, actually. Say you're trying to infiltrate the thieves guild headquarters...you'd make one Stealth roll at the beginning, and would Let it Ride through the entire scene. You'd have to apply that same roll to all challenges within that scene. Say you get four successes...that's great versus the run of the mill footpads milling about with their Observation skill of 3d, but not such a sure thing against the master of assassins with his Observation of 6d.

Of course that cuts both ways...the GM would hold to one roll for the underlings and one roll for the assassin guy.

Tim

Okay that is a bit different.  I would do something similiar but with a little difference.  Modifiers to the roll would still vary from situation to situation, same roll though.  So if they are sneaking through a room with lots of shadows and plenty of hiding places then the Master Assassin may not see them there.  Where as a bright hallway with bare walls would make it likely that even the footpads would see them.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOn the whole the good work of the Forge has been to put into words things which people did already; the bad work has been to pretend this was revolutionary. I think it's good to try to express concisely what lots of people are already doing, it helps make it clear in our minds and reminds us to do it. Sometimes we forget.

Yeah pretending something is new and never thought of does have a way of putting a bad taste in the mouths of those who already do it.  They also have a tendency of acting like many of the ideas should be used by everybody in every game.  Basically the old "you're not really having fun" arguement they used to use on people a lot.  Trust me I've heard that more than a few times.

I do think it's a good GMing guideline, though. I've encountered both kinds of GMs, the ones who make you roll a zillion times so you'll fail, and those who are soft and let you roll again so you can succeed. The first makes skill levels meaningless, and the second makes dice rolls meaningless.

If you want a system with no skill levels or one with no dice rolls, they're out there and we can use them. But when you tell me we're using this system with skill levels and dice rolls, I expect they'll be meaningful.

That's why I think it's good to say this kind of thing clearly. A lot of what we do while GMing or playing is quite instinctive or intuitive. If we can express it clearly (as for example in my gaming mottoes in my sig) then that helps us do it more consistently, and lets other players and GMs know what to expect from us, so we can game with people whose styles fit with ours.

"Let It Ride" is part of that.

But I wouldn't call it a "rule". It's GMing advice. And that is indeed a problem with many indie game books, that they mix up rules and setting and GM advice and designer's notes in this big spaghetti mess. That works for a homebrew where the GM wrote it and can explain it to everyone, but not so well for a thing you want to sell.

I think it's a good guideline. And if it's vague, well as I said I think that's natural. Also perhaps the vagueness is a good thing - leave it up to the judgment of the GM, who can judge it not only according to what's reasonable, but the pace of the game session, how interested the players are and so on.

I like 'letting it ride', so to speak, as long as future rolling would just be for the same thing, under the same circumstances, any any future rolling is just nitpicking. This is pretty much the same as many White Wolf skill rolls, where in some instances you make it "for the scene" instead of for each and every round. For example, why bother having a PC roll "socialize" every 10 minutes if the party pretty much stays the same and no new NPCs or circumstances arise? Have 'em roll once and be done with it. But other than that? Nah, there's always a chance to fail. As long as the Gm understands the difference between 'bogging shit down' and 'realistic rolling that keeps the threat of failure real' everything should be cool.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAgain, only own BE, but judging from BE, it seems like the "scene economy" is a founding principle of the game and it has a sort of gamist bent than being concerned about modeling reality. So I think that some sort of GM resource that would dictate challenges could be mustered to be applied to the same or different skills, as is appropriate.

My bad, I should have read your posts more closely and I would have known you had BE! The scene economy thing is where BW and BE are profoundly different, and the strict regimentation of BE pretty much turns me off.

Quote from: RPGPunditSince Luke Crane has apparently all but admitted that the rule is there to deprotagonize GMs, and since the Forgies out there tend to take pride in this fact, I don't see where the point for argument is, or on what basis someone could say that isn't the real intent of the rule.

I don't think anyone has been talking about Luke's intent. We've been talking about what the rule actually does in play, which is far more important.

QuoteAlso, Eyebeamz statement on it just seems like common sense; not only does it deprotagonize the GM by taking away his right to decide when players should make a roll...

Nah, this is just wrong. If I'm GMing BW and one of the characters has a belief like "I will penetrate the lair of the necromancer and put a dagger in his eye." I still get to set up the situation and make the test obstacles as hard or as easy as is appropriate. I still get to play my NPCs as tough as I want. I still get to call for a Stealthy test to get past the guards. I still get to call for a Lockpicking test to get in the treasure chamber, etc. Let it Ride just gets rid of a bunch of ticky-tack bullshit rolls that serve NO purpose when taken in concert with the rest of the system.

Maybe it seems like a dumb rule to good kind-hearted wise GMs like yourself, but I fail to see what harm is done by having good GMing techniques codified in the rules.

Tim

Quote from: peteramthorOkay that is a bit different.  I would do something similiar but with a little difference.  Modifiers to the roll would still vary from situation to situation, same roll though.  So if they are sneaking through a room with lots of shadows and plenty of hiding places then the Master Assassin may not see them there.  Where as a bright hallway with bare walls would make it likely that even the footpads would see them.

Yep, there are situational modifiers like that built into the system that add dice to the favored character's pool when conditions are favorable. There's also this nifty mechanic called Linked Tests which lets you...um...link tests together. For instance, maintaining the thieves guild infiltration example, your character might have a skill like Assassination-Wise (seriously!) and use it in a linked test to find a good spot to off the Master. If he succeeded at his Assassination-Wise roll it gives a +1D to whatever test it's linked to (probably some sort of Knives/Crossbow/Sword test in this instance).

Tim

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn short I think both can work, but non-"let it roll" gets a bad rep due to abusive and handwavey GMing practices that came out of the desire to advance a plot instead of neutrally referee a situation.

Well, I'm sure some Burning Wheel fan has said some stupid thing like all other games are broken or what-not.  I'm not endorsing any particular "bad rep" from someone else.  

However, that said, I have seen real GMs call for repetitive rolls for many reasons besides just trying to control the plot.  Sometimes it is just following strict rules, i.e. like "Roll climb for every 10 feet" or "Roll Search for every 5 foot by 5 foot area".  Sometimes it is done in the name of realistically simulating probabilities.  Sometimes it is done to try to make the players feel the boredom of their characters doing a long task.  Sometimes it is done to try to add a sort of tension to the outcome (a sort of mechanical tension that I personally am uninterested in).  

There are many cases where rerolls aren't particularly bad, but at best they seem like a wash to me.  

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThe "player creativity" thing comes in, as I see it, when you fail the roll. When a roll is failed, the players are forced to deal with the consequences of such a roll. That could include applying other skills or coming up with a way that it is practical to retry the roll.

I just find "Let it Ride" ham-handed and impractical.

Well, trying other skills is fine and that's perfectly consistent with Let It Ride.  If I fail my Stealth roll and the guards see me, I can try to Bluff them.  

However, as a player I'm totally not interested in finding a creative answer to give me a reroll on the same skill.  If I have some creative ideas for Stealth, then I'll say them on the first roll.  I find it hard to picture a creative answer for a basic reroll on the same skill, and it sounds suspiciously to me like just wheedling the GM.  cf. My answer to Kyle below...

Quote from: Kyle AaronHere we should also consider what level of abstraction and player input we want. "I use my Lifting skill to crank open the stuck door... damn, failed the roll. Hey, how about I use the crowbar? Can I get another roll?" If you want to abstract things, then you'd say, "no, because part of Lifting skill is knowing to use a crowbar - you already used it without saying." If you want to encourage player imagination, then you'd say, "okay, that gives you +10, roll again." That's good, but taken too far can lead to players rolling and rolling until they get what they want - this time making not skill levels but the dice rolls irrelevant.

Giving a reroll for using the right tools for the job strikes me as (1) obvious, and (2) something that should have gone in the first roll.  Giving rerolls for this encourages holding back ideas in order to get repeats.  i.e. "OK, I'll try to climb the wall... (failure)  Well, now I'll try to climb with my rope and pitons." will get you two rolls, whereas just climbing with the right tools only gets you one.  

If some extra bonus was forgotten for some reason, I would add to their original roll.  i.e. They rolled a 22 total, then the +2 for the crowbar makes it a 24.  (Or in a dice pool system like Burning Wheel, they might roll only the extra bonus dice to add.)  I wouldn't let it reroll the original.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronBetween those extremes, it's reasonable to suppose that each roll is one use of a skill which applies until something changes. So if you were trying to pick the lock while under fire, you get one roll only; but if you come back to it later, and have hours and hours to do it while consulting a manual, okay you can have another roll.

On the whole the good work of the Forge has been to put into words things which people did already; the bad work has been to pretend this was revolutionary. I think it's good to try to express concisely what lots of people are already doing, it helps make it clear in our minds and reminds us to do it. Sometimes we forget.

Um, yeah.  That's exactly what Let It Ride says.  The roll applies until something substantive changes.  Yes, that is a judgement call, but GMs have to make judgement calls all the time.  

I might put this down to just common sense, but repetitive rolls are something that I've seen in lots of games.  It's often directly encoded into the rules, like "Roll Climb for every 10 feet moved".  Even if not directly encoded, though, I've seen it used lots of times.  

As for pretenses, I'm just saying that I find the application of this rule good.  I'm not endorsing how all Burning Wheel fans (or authors) talk about it.  For what its worth -- my Harn group was reasonably interested in trying out Burning Wheel, and the main thing that unsold us on the idea was certain Burning Wheel fans who posted on the Harn forums about the game.

Quote from: TimMaybe it seems like a dumb rule to good kind-hearted wise GMs like yourself, but I fail to see what harm is done by having good GMing techniques codified in the rules.

Tim

Mainly that the BEST GMing technique is "be flexible".

If you codify something, even if you think that something is a good thing for GMs to do as a general case, by taking away the GM's power to do something different you will inevitably create a situation where that usually-good practice will end up making things suck.

GMing tips should thus NOT be codified as laws. "Good GMing" isn't something that can be created artificially, much less by a distant game-designer who has no connection to the playing group in question.

RPGPundit

Seriously, could those in favor of repetitive rolls give some more concrete examples of when they think it is significantly better than a single roll?  

I can think of many times when repetitive rolls wouldn't be so bad, but I can't think of any cases where the rule actually causes any problems for me.  (Though this might be a difference in taste compared to others.)

Quote from: jhkimSeriously, could those in favor of repetitive rolls give some more concrete examples of when they think it is significantly better than a single roll?  

I can think of many times when repetitive rolls wouldn't be so bad, but I can't think of any cases where the rule actually causes any problems for me.  (Though this might be a difference in taste compared to others.)

I don't know if I've ever seen a repetative roll, one after the other.  Gamers always seem to have a lot of dice so if five d20 rolls are neeed to scale the cliff, five d20s are rolled at the same time.  It's one roll with 5 dice.  You can order them or just roll randomly for where in the order any failures occur.  It's just like rolliing a pool of dice.

For my sessions, "Let It Ride" has been a great guideline.  But we had a lot of folks who continually wanted to retry to reroll on each and every task.  "Let it ride" became a table catchphrase, and our games did speed up a bit.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe whole problem with it boils down to the vagueness, which extends as well to identifying the "bad" practices that "Let it Ride" is supposed to correct.

Elliot -- stop. You're making me redundant.

;)

With very little left to say, that's directly on topic, I'm going to ramble.

I'm not a big fan of multiple rolls in general -- but they can serve a legitimate purpose (mainly to calibrate the level of difficulty of a task and/or *reduce* the element of luck).

They can also be used to manipulate the game, of course, but as Elliot and others point out the "let it ride" rule is a fairly crude failsafe -- all it really does is give a player an inalienable right all players, everywhere, already have (the right to call shenanigans).

From previous discussions with luke, it sounds like he found some significant value in calling this out with a rule that gives a player the right to complain under some situations (a perceived arbitrary re-roll)... but as a player, I'd rather say I have the right to complain about any number of things including being fed orcs for breakfast five sessions in a row, and I'd rather the rules *not* try to tell me what it's valid to whine about.

Take 10 and Take 20 are categorically different -- they're concrete and they represent a truth many rules-sets pay lip service to but few codify so well (the idea that the listed success chance represents extreme conditions).

Anyway, in short, I agree with Elliot (unless something I've said here disagrees with him, in which case I don't agree with Elliot.)

Cheers,
-E.

Well, I've seen repetition invoked as a possible good thing in 3.5's Unearthed Arcana and core WW games as a way to determine how fast things get done. In 3.5, I think they called them Extended Checks where you attempted to hit a DC more then once in a series of rolls (a roll simulating a certain amount of time where 20 can't be taken) *or* a series called Complex Checks where more then one skill needs to be succeeded at, and you just roll the dice pretty much all at once.

WW was the same. I'm sure a LiR scenerio could be concoted for those, but I'd just roll once for the Extended and say it simulated the whole thing. Depends on the situation, though.

Quote from: Thanatos02WW was the same. I'm sure a LiR scenerio could be concoted for those, but I'd just roll once for the Extended and say it simulated the whole thing. Depends on the situation, though.

Ah, I wasn't aware of the extended check thing: that's pretty cool.

There are two ways to handle time constraints of that sort in BW. 1) You make time-based failure a part of the stakes of the contest (if you fail your lockpicking roll you don't get the door opened before the guard patrol arrives). 2) Players can choose to work carefully, which gives them a bonus to their roll, but a time-based complication is required in the case of failure.

I think the extended roll thing might be more fun if your character is competent.

Tim

Quote from: jhkimWell, trying other skills is fine and that's perfectly consistent with Let It Ride.  If I fail my Stealth roll and the guards see me, I can try to Bluff them.

Sure, but it's not like:
1) As stated, you are allowed to make a new sneak roll against different entities after you bluff or otherwise deal with the guards.
2) It gives you the latitude to try something to change conditions to permit a reroll.

It's just one of those rules that buggers with reality, like the old "wizards can't use swords." Not "wizards aren't very good with swords" but "can't use."

Quote from: jhkimSeriously, could those in favor of repetitive rolls give some more concrete examples of when they think it is significantly better than a single roll?

For me it's all about the math and the discrete decision/evaluation points.

I remember a discussion I had a long time ago about interpreting "pick locks"--in general, not specifically D&D, probably working from RQ as a baseline. Could you try to pick a lock multiple times? One answer was basically the "Let it Ride" rule: only once your skill goes up. Another was, each roll takes a discrete amount of time. Another was, each subsequent roll takes an exponentially longer amount of time. Another was, try as many times as you like, but if you crit fail, you've jammed the lock. Any of these can be simulated with a single probability function, so in theory you could do it with one roll, it's just a matter of calculating what to roll. E.g., you could look at someone's skill, ask them how long at most they're willing to keep trying, convert that into a table, and roll percentile dice to see if they open or jam the lock (and how long it took), or if they give up after the time allotted.

But for any of these latter approaches to work (except maybe "jamming" on a crit fail), time has to actually matter in the game. It's implicit in the mechanic itself; if a GM doesn't enforce passage of time, then the rule doesn't work. If they do, then iterative dicerolls are an effective way of representing just that fact: there are some tasks that you never know how long they'll take, or even if you're just about to succeed or will never succeed. Like trying to catch a fish using a baited hook, for example. A single roll with "let it ride" introduces an artificiality to the game, where people give up after a single brief try. I know that BW has rules for working slowly & carefully; I forget if you can try that after an initial failure, but at some point you're back to iterative rolls.

The other thing, decision/evaluation points, is what I pointed to when I was writing about sneaking into a fortress. It looks like Tim's method is to use iterative rolls for each guard, which I'm not sure is actually in the book, but it's a good solution to answering the question of when & where someone finally notices you. It's not available though if you're testing your climbing ability to scale a 20' wall or a 100' cliff.

Elliot hits the nail on the head, as usual.

One of the big problems with RPG best-practices is that the baseline from which the game is being discussed is very hard to nail down. So I'm going to give an example of where I think multiple rolls are a good idea.

In the JAGS Revised drama roll system a situation may call for a number of rolls (usually three) to accomplish a task instead of one. Drama-rolls are used when there is a game focus on some non-combat skill (such as drivers in a racing game or the act of picking a lock in a tense thieving adventure).

There are two key elements of the Drama Roll:
1. Each roll may cost something like time or money (i.e. the lock has a difficulty of +20, meaning you have to roll until your aggregate total of successes is 20 or more and each roll takes 30 seconds and there's a guard coming).  In this case, the decision to keep going or bail is important since the player knows how close they are to success and gambles his ability against the risk of being discovered.

2. The character can take actions between rolls to change the outcome. An example is in a driving race where the driver who makes their three rolls by the most wins the race--a driver can choose riskier maneuvers (possibly resulting in a crash) to gain more successes. In short, it takes a single abstract roll (driving) and turns it into a mini-game where the success is drawn out and the player gets to make decisions "during" the resolution.

Now, all this is cheating in response to the question since the many-rolls-thing is probably meant to be "a bunch of rolls for 'no reason.'"

The idea of building tension by having multiple rolls for success is not alien to me--but it's not my cup of tea either (and if we're going that way, the GM better do a really good job of building tension--not just having me roll ... and roll ... and roll ...).

Secondly, representing "reality" or some rule-guideline is okay (saying that you must make a climbing roll ever X-feet makes it riskier to climb a high cliff than a low wall). But there are reasons for rule-zero type things to cover situations where the players don't want to do this--and this is one of them. The GM can decide to just have one roll where that element of verisimilitude isn't wanted.

A final note: it's very possible for GM's to "fail their GMing roll"--in fact, it happens, IME, especially to me. After a game I can think of things I shoulda done better but, being on the spot (GMing is a performance art) or just not at the top-of-my-game, I didn't.

I think a lot of what gets ascribed to bad / malicious GMing is really just a GM casting about for something that'll work. Some people do this better than others--but I think an all-too-often combination of generic poor communication and lack of stated goals leads to situations where the GM may feel that having a bunch of rolls could help and the players are dug in against it.

This isn't so much a many-rolls thing or a let-it-ride thing. It's more about the GM maybe realizing that time-pressure in the game will lead to a kind of tension that just asking for a bunch of rolls isn't doing ... and the players maybe realizing that there's a lack of energy at the table and rather than resenting the GM, just taking a step back and talking about it might help (and if none of that does help it's the people--not the game).

-Marco

Quote from: jhkimSeriously, could those in favor of repetitive rolls give some more concrete examples of when they think it is significantly better than a single roll?

Take a look at this map from Jeff's blog (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2007/02/fragments-from-palace-of-vampire-queen.html).  It's from Palace of the Vampire Queen, the first adventure module ever published.

(http://imgred.com/http://bp2.blogger.com/_lpL870wV2A4/Rdy6A51BdAI/AAAAAAAAAlo/dqYTyl08FiU/s400/vampirequeen5.jpg)

If a character wants to try using stealth or find traps on that long central hallway from the entrance to room 51, I think it's better to have them make a check each turn than any kind of "let it ride" rule.

Rather than getting 1 success -- and letting walk right down the length of the hall, they need to consider whether to keep risking failure, or if they should stop pressing their luck and duck into one of the side doors or hallways.

Let it Ride is great for a storytelling game.  Not always so great for a traditional RPG where the focus is on exploration and adventure. :)

Quote from: StuartIf a character wants to try using stealth or find traps on that long central hallway from the entrance to room 51, I think it's better to have them make a check each turn than any kind of "let it ride" rule.

Rather than getting 1 success -- and letting walk right down the length of the hall, they need to consider whether to keep risking failure, or if they should stop pressing their luck and duck into one of the side doors or hallways.

Let it Ride is great for a storytelling game.  Not always so great for a traditional RPG where the focus is on exploration and adventure. :)

OK, but...

As a player in dungeon crawls, I hate rolling for find traps every turn.  To me, it would just drag things out pointlessly.  This isn't out of a desire to make it into a storytelling game -- this is just that I'd prefer to move on to the monster-fighting and other more interesting action.  For example, here's an LJ post, Avoiding Trivial Stakes (http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/13336.html) where I talk about being frustrated with having to make a bunch of rolls dealing with a set of pits in dungeon in a HarnMaster campaign.  This isn't finding traps, but it is a similar static challenge where we had to make repeated rolls.  

As a DM, I might roll in advance for the PCs for when they find a trap.  Alternatively, though, I might just have them either automatically notice traps or never notice traps, because neither randomizing it nor the time management of doling out rolls are exciting to me.  

Now, to Marco:  Yes, if you're choosing a notable maneuver with each roll, that's different.  For example, James Bond 007 has an interesting chase system with maneuvers rolled each round.  I haven't played JAGS, but the maneuver system in the Drama Roll system sounds potentially interesting.

Similarly, I don't consider combat to generally be repetitive rolls because there are a variety of options each round.    Though if combat reduces down to only one reasonable choice rolled over and over, I feel the same way.  For example, I recall a one-on-one duel between two high-level cavaliers in an old AD&D game.  It became a real snooze since they only had around a 20% hit chance, and they needed a huge number of hits to take the other out.

QuoteOk, but...

Address the Stealth check.

Quote from: StuartAddress the Stealth check.

Sure.  I don't like rolling Stealth every round either, for similar reasons to not liking to roll for finding traps.  As for how I'd handle it...

In D&D, I'd either do a secret set of rolls for the party again, not make it an issue, or just make something up.  

In Burning Wheel, the party would roll for Stealth once -- getting a given number of successes (or failure).  That would then be the base target to beat for a faction in the dungeon to notice them.  If there are multiple creatures in a faction (i.e. a group of 7 orcs), then I'd roll for the lead orc with other orcs adding helping dice to represent the benefit of numbers.  That could be modified by particular circumstances for a given creature.  

No, this isn't statistically the same as rolling each round, but it works fine for me.  I'm not convinced of the realism of any particular probability curve anyway, especially not for an activity like sneaking.

Quote from: TimMaybe it seems like a dumb rule to good kind-hearted wise GMs like yourself, but I fail to see what harm is done by having good GMing techniques codified in the rules.

Things change when they go from being optional to being mandatory.  Maybe you think desserts are a good way to end a meal, but they can be a problem when you are forced to eat one whether you want it or not.

Quote from: jhkimAs a player in dungeon crawls, I hate rolling for find traps every turn.  To me, it would just drag things out pointlessly.  This isn't out of a desire to make it into a storytelling game -- this is just that I'd prefer to move on to the monster-fighting and other more interesting action.

To me, it's not pointless if the game is played by experiencing the moment instead of getting to the "interesting action".  If I want to travel to California and getting there is my goal, it makes the most sense to fly because I'll get there quickly but I won't get to see any of the scenery along the way, except from tens of thousands of feet in the air.  If I want to see the scenery along the way, it makes sense to drive.  It will take me a lot longer to get there, but I'll see a lot more along the way.  And which one of those options is right for a person will depend on what they want out of the trip.

In many ways, I think impatience is one of the biggest features of many Indie games.  It looks an awful lot like a Reader's Digest or even Cliff's Notes version of role-playing to me.  (ADDED:  And if all you've ever read is Dickens, I can see where a Cliff's Notes approach to role-playing could seem mighty appealing.)

Quote from: John MorrowTo me, it's not pointless if the game is played by experiencing the moment instead of getting to the "interesting action".  If I want to travel to California and getting there is my goal, it makes the most sense to fly because I'll get there quickly but I won't get to see any of the scenery along the way, except from tens of thousands of feet in the air.  If I want to see the scenery along the way, it makes sense to drive.  It will take me a lot longer to get there, but I'll see a lot more along the way.  And which one of those options is right for a person will depend on what they want out of the trip.

But...  repetitive rolling isn't interesting scenery.  I mean, I'm a Harn player -- one of the most detailed fantasy worlds there is.  For our game, we made out a detailed map of Bowdyn's shop, discussing about how the heating would work.  We have sermons written out and so forth.  

But rolling every round doesn't add anything interesting for me to the dungeon.  It's not like there is some fascinating details that are revealed if only you'll sit around and roll on Find Traps a whole lot, is there?

Quote from: jhkimSeriously, could those in favor of repetitive rolls give some more concrete examples of when they think it is significantly better than a single roll?  

I can think of many times when repetitive rolls wouldn't be so bad, but I can't think of any cases where the rule actually causes any problems for me.  (Though this might be a difference in taste compared to others.)

Here's where I think multiple rolls are a good idea... but before I start, nothing I'm going to say defends a D&D-style rolling for traps each turn thing.

In general, I see asking for multiple rolls as being advantageous in a few circumstances:

1) Represent a high degree of success over time (e.g. combat, hacking rules, etc.) -- for rules where success is additive and failure isn't absolute asking for multiple rolls ensures that average results are more likely than really unusual ones. This makes characters perform more reliably and gives high-skill characters their due

2) Represent situations where failure is -- ultimately -- likely (e.g. sneaking all the way through enemy lines), except for extremely high-skill characters. This would be the case when *any* failure represents failure of the whole exercise. This is important because most systems don't give good alternatives to modify success chances in this way.

In the sneaking-through-enemy-lines situation, I'd rather give modest skill-level characters multiple rolls (with a very high total-chance of failure) than a single highly-modified roll.

I'd want to work out how many rolls with the players ahead of time (e.g. "To sneak through the encamped army to the General's pavilion, you'll need to make 12 Sneak rolls... the last 2 will be through his Elite Guard and will be at DC 15).

One added advantage to this is the opportunity to modify approach and plans during the attempt (so the PC's might seize an opportunity to back out if they realized they're not likely to make it), rather than simple and immediate binary success or failure.

3) Represent passage of time. Maybe fixing the spaceship requires 3 successful engineering rolls and each one takes 1 week -- so it's a minimum of 3 weeks, but potentially a much longer period. I'd only do this if time mattered, of course. And it would be more meaningful if the PC's could make decisions in between rolls that make a difference (e.g. "We fire our crappy engineer and hire the babe he was sleeping with...")

There are single-roll methods to do all these things, of course, but I find multiple rolls more intuitive and a better way (in these instances) to represent  these kinds of in-game situations.

Now, thinking about the "roll for traps" which is kind of the poster-child for Don't Do This -- if I were running the PC's traversing a mine field and time was *any* kind of factor I'd probably ask for multiple rolls: I think it would add tension to the scenario, with the chance of disaster hanging over every roll.

But I wouldn't be much interested in running or playing in a game where *every* move was played out like that.

Tension, over-done, becomes frustration and boredom.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: jhkimBut rolling every round doesn't add anything interesting for me to the dungeon.  It's not like there is some fascinating details that are revealed if only you'll sit around and roll on Find Traps a whole lot, is there?

I don't think the characters need to roll for every square.  But I wouldn't necessarily ask for one roll to get to orc killing, either.  If I had a 100 foot corridor in D&D with 2 traps in it, I'd ask the players for a roll.  If they make the roll, I'd have them find the first trap.  If they fail the roll, I'd have them miss the trap and potentially trigger it.  Then do the same for the next trap.  And also do the same if they say they are looking for traps, even if there aren't any.  Similarly, stealth could be handled on a per-observer or per-observation point basis.  Secret doors are a bit different, because failing to find them can mean walking past them.  I'd probably ask for some non-zero number of rolls in that case, regardless of whether there are any or not.

Perhaps the real problem here is the idea of asking for skill rolls even when they aren't in response to anything.  In other words, the character rolls stealth when they start sneaking, not when they are observed. They roll their trap-finding skill when they search a square, not to see if they find a trap.  I think the latter can often work better, though some obfuscation is needed when asking for a roll can give the players information (e.g., if I only ask for a find secret doors roll if there is one there, and I ask for 2 roll sand the players fail the, they'll know that they missed 2 secret doors).

I think thats right John Marrow.

In my game there would be multiple rolls. But only when there is a chance of failure meaning anything. Only when the orcs have an opportunity to hear the sneak. That wouldn't be every round or every five feet.

I have something else to add, sorry if it isn't part of the conversation, but I as DM would make the stealth rolls. The player would let me know they are trying, they wouldn't know if they made it or not nor even how bad or good they really did (OK I might give them some idea).

Why doesn't doing that make sense?

I had to READ "let it ride" again out of BW.  It reads to me as a rule for minimalizing rolls and making the roll matter in regards to the players intent.  

Climbing checks are the first thing that came to mind.  Let's say that your intent as a player is to scale a cliff.  In D&D, pulls out book, you move at 1/4 your speed up the cliff.  Each move action that includes climbing requires a seperate climb check against the set obstacle.  3.5 uses taking 10 or 20 to eliminate the chance of eventual failure.  Looks at those rules, I'll be damned climbing is the example given.  A player cannot take 20 because there is a penalty associated with failure (falling).  A player cannot take 10 when they are being threatened or distracted.  So I could take 10 as long as nothing is happening to scale the wall without multiple rolls.  

The "let it ride rule" allows for one roll against the obstacle to determine the success or failure of scaling the cliff.  If there is something happening, that wouldn't allow me to take a 10 in D&D, the obstacle is increased in BW but still would only warrant one roll unless the distraction happened during the climb to change conditions legitimately and drastically.  

It seems to me a preference of how much entertainment one gets of fighting their way up the cliff.  I think the reason taking 10 or 20 were implemented into D&D is that a fair percentage of people don't.  Let it ride seems like a natural extrapolation of that.

Quote from: John MorrowThings change when they go from being optional to being mandatory.  Maybe you think deserts are a good way to end a meal, but they can be a problem when you are forced to eat one whether you want it or not.

Yes, I always try to take my meals in the Gobi or Sahara. :raise:

Anyway, you're the one eating the highly decorated three layer cake that's ALL the same flavor and took four hours of prep to make, not me.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt looks like Tim's method is to use iterative rolls for each guard, which I'm not sure is actually in the book, but it's a good solution to answering the question of when & where someone finally notices you. It's not available though if you're testing your climbing ability to scale a 20' wall or a 100' cliff.

No, I would make one roll for each unit (for the lack of a better word). So, you might make it past the mook guards, no problem, but run into difficulties with the necromancer's elite undead sentinels.

If we were working at a very detailed level, individual guards might get some situational modifiers (light levels, high terrain, that sort of thing) that could give them a boost or a penalty.

Rolling for each individual guard would totally subvert the purpose of Let it Ride and be a pain in the ass, in my opinion.

Quote from: TimYes, I always try to take my meals in the Gobi or Sahara. :raise:

I knew I should have confirmed the right spelling. :(

Quote from: TimAnyway, you're the one eating the highly decorated three layer cake that's ALL the same flavor and took four hours of prep to make, not me.

There is only one flavor for cake:  Chocolate.  Sorry.  Had to be said. ;)

(My wedding cake was chocolate, too, by the way.)

QuoteNo, I would make one roll for each unit (for the lack of a better word)

Tim, same thing, what I mean is that you roll for each discrete chance of being noticed. Obviously if you like you can aggregate several individuals from one instance into a single roll--any questions over whether multiple individuals should have a better chance than just one, and how much better, is just details.

But note, this is iterative rolling by another name, it just brings up another issue with "sneak" rolls in other games, which is whether it should be done as a straight roll, opposed rolls (better level of success wins), single roll against a difficulty/penalty based on who might be listening, or a straight roll which, only if failed, triggers a "perception" roll by the "opponent".

Also I'd like to go back to John's objection to multiple rolls; I want to emphasize that since he's apparently not concerned about illusionism or "conflict resolution", it basically amounts to an aesthetic objection to rolling lots of dice. This is why I brought up the math; except for the question of decision/evaluation points, one roll can always substitute for many, in theory, if you're willing to do the calculation. (Again by decision points, I mean things like choosing whether to proceed or go back, or follow an unexpected opportunity, e.g. when sneaking around. And by evaluation points, I mean things like determining where you are, exactly, when the guards raise the alarm, or when you slip off the cliff wall.)

Many rolls can also substitute for one--again in theory. And John is right that there's nothing inherently more realistic about the curve that comes from one method or the other. What strikes me as a bigger issue with "let it ride" and related "scene-based conflict resolution" is that it changes the relationship between different but related curves. E.g., when you have a strict 1 roll/50' climb check, it scales differently going from a 50' wall to a 300' wall, than it does if you simply roll once for any given "climb attempt scene". In BW you can give a higher obstacle for a higher wall, sure, but just as the actual math for converting multiple checks into a single diceroll is complicated, so the use of Ob modifiers is going to be very hard to make come out "just right". The result, I think, is that there will be a bias aginast a plan which depends on a chained sequence of tasks--where failure of any one means total failure--compared to a plan that can be summarized in a single action, no matter how "extended", since the latter just means one roll which will "Ride".

Quote from: Elliot WilenTim, same thing, what I mean is that you roll for each discrete chance of being noticed. Obviously if you like you can aggregate several individuals from one instance into a single roll--any questions over whether multiple individuals should have a better chance than just one, and how much better, is just details.

Oh, ok. I understand now. I might have some minor quibbles regarding how I'd set up a dungeon or other set-piece encounter in BW (much more of a 'hit the highpoints' flowcharty style) vs. how I'd do it in D&D (traditional map with many individual encounters), but they're sort of beside the point.

QuoteThe result, I think, is that there will be a bias aginast a plan which depends on a chained sequence of tasks--where failure of any one means total failure--compared to a plan that can be summarized in a single action, no matter how "extended", since the latter just means one roll which will "Ride".

I think this paragraph is really perceptive. All I can say is that when GMing BW I make a special effort to make certain that failure at any given point is just as interesting as success and doesn't bring things to a grinding halt. By "special effort" I mainly mean improvise. ;)

We also stop and discuss stakes about 50% of the time which can also help avoid stone wall dead ends.

Quote from: John MorrowThere is only one flavor for cake: Chocolate. Sorry. Had to be said.

We are in total agreement, here! :)

Tim

Quote from: jhkimSure. I don't like rolling Stealth every round either, for similar reasons to not liking to roll for finding traps. As for how I'd handle it...

No.  I understand you prefer Burning Wheel, Let it Ride,  Storytelling games, etc.  But you had asked:

Quote from: jhkimSeriously, could those in favor of repetitive rolls give some more concrete examples of when they think it is significantly better than a single roll?

Which I did with the example of the map, and specifically stealth checks for character moving down the long corridor between the entrance and room 51.

(http://imgred.com/http://bp2.blogger.com/_lpL870wV2A4/Rdy6A51BdAI/AAAAAAAAAlo/dqYTyl08FiU/s400/vampirequeen5.jpg)

Let's consider the way it would work in play:

* Characters noisily marching down the hall would be heard by any monsters in the rooms with doors on the hall: 5, 15, 16, 17, 45, 30 as they pass their doors, and be seen by any monsters in the East-West halls as they cross them.  
* Any character can move quietly, although those not wearing metal armour are quieter than those in chain or plate mail.  If moving quietly, monsters  
in rooms they pass can make a hear-noise check.
* A thief that makes a successful move-silently check doesn't make ANY noise, and the monsters in the adjacent rooms get no hear-noise check.  If they fail their check, they're still moving quietly.

A thief moving ahead of the party should roll to move silently each turn.  Depending on where they are in the hallway, the GM knows which monsters to make hear-noise checks for if they fail their move-silently roll.  Keep in mind that there are some extra doors in the hallway to side-passages, and the players don't know that there aren't secret doors as well.

Multiple rolls are also in the player's best interest.  If they fail a check one round, it doesn't mean they've been discovered.  There could be no monsters in the adjacent room (or they failed their hear-noise check).

Running this specific dungeon, it is significantly better to ask for repetitive rolls each round than a single stealth check that applies to the entire hallway.

Now, you might prefer the story, story, story approach of other games, and not enjoy a traditional RPG as much as a storytelling game -- and honestly, that's totally cool.  But, like I said earlier:

Quote from: jhkimLet it Ride is great for a storytelling game. Not always so great for a traditional RPG where the focus is on exploration and adventure.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAlso I'd like to go back to John's objection to multiple rolls; I want to emphasize that since he's apparently not concerned about illusionism or "conflict resolution", it basically amounts to an aesthetic objection to rolling lots of dice.

Many rolls can also substitute for one--again in theory. And John is right that there's nothing inherently more realistic about the curve that comes from one method or the other.

Converting from many rolls to one roll and getting the odds right is non-trivial -- and by "right" I mean "right for the game's fictional universe."

If I have 17- skill in GURPS my odds of blowing an unmodified roll are very small. My odds of blowing any one of 10 rolls are still pretty small, but figuring out exactly what they are and then rolling that would (for me) require a computer.

I probably care way more about getting the odds right than most people... but it'd be worth it to me to make 10 rolls rather than one that was a poor approximation of what I'd paid for.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Converting from many rolls to one roll and getting the odds right is non-trivial -- and by "right" I mean "right for the game's fictional universe."

If I have 17- skill in GURPS my odds of blowing an unmodified roll are very small. My odds of blowing any one of 10 rolls are still pretty small, but figuring out exactly what they are and then rolling that would (for me) require a computer.

I probably care way more about getting the odds right than most people... but it'd be worth it to me to make 10 rolls rather than one that was a poor approximation of what I'd paid for.

Cheers,
-E.

If you need to make all x or fail, and your chance to succeed on one roll is y.  Then your chance to succeed on all is (y)^x.  For roll under 17 on 3D6, that is about 99.5% on one roll or about 95% to make all 10 (give or take a factor of .995 :)).  Yet if your base chance is 80%, then to make all 10 rolls you only have about a 10% chance (give or take another factor of 0.8 given my cheap calculator).

Basically with too many cascaded rolls, unless you really are in the 95% category, you are sure to fail.

Quote from: XantherIf you need to make all x or fail, and your chance to succeed on one roll is y.  Then your chance to succeed on all is (y)^x.  For roll under 17 on 3D6, that is about 99.5% on one roll or about 95% to make all 10 (give or take a factor of .995 :)).  Yet if your base chance is 80%, then to make all 10 rolls you only have about a 10% chance (give or take another factor of 0.8 given my cheap calculator).

Basically with too many cascaded rolls, unless you really are in the 95% category, you are sure to fail.

Yeah -- I can actually do the math; I don't typically play w/ a calculator or the exact odds sitting in front of me... my point was that I'd rather do the 10 rolls than do the math.

And I'm okay with a low chance of success for multiple attempts: I think sneaking through a dense enemy encampment should be hugely risky, even for someone w/ an 80% chance of getting past one guard post.

I'm sure Burning Wheel and any other 'Let it Ride' system has ways to represent this but I'm guessing they're either rough approximations of what multiple rolls would indicate or they require some work to figure out the odds.

Since I'm only in favor of calling for multiple rolls when it's particularly meaningful or interesting I'd prefer the rolls to a crude approximation or the calculation required to get a single, accurate number.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: StuartLet's consider the way it would work in play:

* Characters noisily marching down the hall would be heard by any monsters in the rooms with doors on the hall: 5, 15, 16, 17, 45, 30 as they pass their doors, and be seen by any monsters in the East-West halls as they cross them.  
* Any character can move quietly, although those not wearing metal armour are quieter than those in chain or plate mail.  If moving quietly, monsters  
in rooms they pass can make a hear-noise check.
* A thief that makes a successful move-silently check doesn't make ANY noise, and the monsters in the adjacent rooms get no hear-noise check.  If they fail their check, they're still moving quietly.

A thief moving ahead of the party should roll to move silently each turn.  Depending on where they are in the hallway, the GM knows which monsters to make hear-noise checks for if they fail their move-silently roll.  Keep in mind that there are some extra doors in the hallway to side-passages, and the players don't know that there aren't secret doors as well.

And if that is your ideal way of running things, that's great!!  That's your preference and I perfectly accept it.  Different strokes for different folks.  

However, hearing the exact methodology you describe, I can say that this doesn't sound like a method which I would enjoy as either a GM or a player.  In the case you describe, I would ideally prefer to condense down the repetitive rolling rather than rolling move silently each turn.  

Does this mean that your way is wrong and my way is right?  No, it doesn't.  You like the approach you describe, and that's fine.  

As a parallel, I love tactical combat.  I'm still a big Champions fan, for example.  However, there is one aspect of Champions that I don't like.  Endurance point tracking is excessive bookkeeping for me.  I realize that a simple approach where you don't track END phase by phase can't capture all the details of the system as written, but I still prefer it.  

You'll notice that this thread was Why I Like "Let It Ride" -- i.e. this is explaining my preference, not a claim about what approach is objectively better.  I don't think either of these has anything to do with storytelling, though.  I don't particularly prefer story games -- I've generally tended towards what I had called Simulationism (though not the mess that GNS made of that term).  It seems bizarre to me that someone would call making a stealth roll and then attacking a monster in a dungeon crawl "story story story".  

Quote from: -E.Converting from many rolls to one roll and getting the odds right is non-trivial -- and by "right" I mean "right for the game's fictional universe."

If I have 17- skill in GURPS my odds of blowing an unmodified roll are very small. My odds of blowing any one of 10 rolls are still pretty small, but figuring out exactly what they are and then rolling that would (for me) require a computer.

In my experience, I find that the "right" odds in terms of the system mechanics (i.e. what N rolls result in) are often broken in terms of the game's fictional universe.  That is, if you actually played through all characters rolling for their actions all the time, you'll often have broken odds.  For example, rolling out craft skill rolls by the system would result in a bizarre economy -- or the catastrophic highway deaths might result from making driving rolls -- or army actions might be broken.  Systems with critical misses often show this strongly.  I recall some estimate of how many people in an army would chop off their own heads in RuneQuest or Rolemaster.  

The above presumes that the repetitive roll odds are "right" and any way of condensing the rolls should emulate them as closely as possible.  I just think that the result of a Let It Ride roll have to be believable on its own terms.  For the most part, mechanics at best get the average close to believable and variance not too outrageous.  

By parallel, the Take 10 and Take 20 rules in D20 (along with the linear probability spread itself) aren't particularly realistic and don't match other options.  However, on the scale of a game they work well enough.

Quote from: jhkimYou'll notice that this thread was Why I Like "Let It Ride" -- i.e. this is explaining my preference, not a claim about what approach is objectively better.  I don't think either of these has anything to do with storytelling, though.  I don't particularly prefer story games -- I've generally tended towards what I had called Simulationism (though not the mess that GNS made of that term).  It seems bizarre to me that someone would call making a stealth roll and then attacking a monster in a dungeon crawl "story story story".  

You asked for a concrete example of when someone would use repetitive rolls.  In the specific situation I mentioned, I think a single "let it ride" check would be much inferior.  It's not as well suited to a turn-by-turn approach.  It's better suited to a "Conflict Resolution" / "Story" approach.

"Story" doesn't presuppose the genre -- so sneaking about and fighting monsters is no less a story than challenging moral questions.

Quote from: Stuart"Story" doesn't presuppose the genre -- so sneaking about and fighting monsters is no less a story than challenging moral questions.

Hey it worked for RE Howard, Fritz Leiber, the directors of the Die Hard movies, and... me! :D

Quote from: jhkimIn my experience, I find that the "right" odds in terms of the system mechanics (i.e. what N rolls result in) are often broken in terms of the game's fictional universe.  That is, if you actually played through all characters rolling for their actions all the time, you'll often have broken odds.  For example, rolling out craft skill rolls by the system would result in a bizarre economy -- or the catastrophic highway deaths might result from making driving rolls -- or army actions might be broken.  Systems with critical misses often show this strongly.  I recall some estimate of how many people in an army would chop off their own heads in RuneQuest or Rolemaster.  

The above presumes that the repetitive roll odds are "right" and any way of condensing the rolls should emulate them as closely as possible.  I just think that the result of a Let It Ride roll have to be believable on its own terms.  For the most part, mechanics at best get the average close to believable and variance not too outrageous.  

By parallel, the Take 10 and Take 20 rules in D20 (along with the linear probability spread itself) aren't particularly realistic and don't match other options.  However, on the scale of a game they work well enough.

This is a good point; I suspect that I'm incorporating a good deal discretion, "common sense" and my own perspective in what I'm asking for rolls on. My preference for representing stealthing past several guards as a series of rolls versus one roll is probably aesthetic at its core (I was going to write something about character reliability, but I'll leave it alone for now).

And I'll step carefully away from any claims to realistic -- on the game's terms or any others.

I quite like the Take 10 / Take 20 rules (in case that wasn't clear).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Converting from many rolls to one roll and getting the odds right is non-trivial -- and by "right" I mean "right for the game's fictional universe."

If I have 17- skill in GURPS my odds of blowing an unmodified roll are very small. My odds of blowing any one of 10 rolls are still pretty small, but figuring out exactly what they are and then rolling that would (for me) require a computer.

I think I addressed, perhaps a bit obliquely, elsewhere in my post. My point was that there's nothing about many vs. one roll that necessarily produces better or different odds. John really only seems to care about having to physically roll dice more often. Personally that's not a great concern for me, as long as we aren't talking about utterly meaningless dicerolls. The example he gave in his livejournal, where the party was exploring a bunch of pits, would be meaningless: the party members tied themselves together, there was apparently no chance of the rope breaking; the only thing the dice told the group was how many times somebody had to be hauled up after slipping.

As I mentioned in my posts, one-vs.-many does matter when you have internal decision points in the process represented by the dice. It's also hard to get important detail out of a single binary outcome. Though as a side note you could use normal/special/critical results to squeeze more detail out of a single roll. (In climbing: normal failure=you can't climb; critical failure=you fall. In sneaking: normal failure=you're seen at the gate; critical failure=you're caught in the middle of the camp.)

I do agree with him that the aggregate probabilities that arise from the multiple use of simple chances in many systems are often silly because they compound small errors in the basic chances. (It's easy to overlook a 1/1000 chance of dismembering yourself in a skirmish, hard not to notice when 50 guys do it per minute in a battle.)

Another objection to multiple rolls that hasn't been mentioned is that even if you get the basic probabilities right, difficulties may not scale the way that would be implied by multiple rolls, because e.g. your ability to climb the first 25' of sheer slippery rock isn't independent from your ability to climb the next 25'. I think a good argument could be made that many situations are easier to model "plausibly" by looking at an overall difficulty with a single roll instead of making multiple rolls.

That said, once we're in the real world instead of a hypothetical game where your GM is a mathematical savant who can calculate aggregate probabilities faster than you can roll dice, I think that a rigid "single-roll" approach would be likely to distort decisionmaking in a way that'd feel artificial. And this is really my objection: the rule is presented as something that needs to be rigidly applied as a protection against GM abuse; however, a player who expects that the rule is going to be applied rigidly can easily find ways to exploit it--again as I wrote above, the trick is to approach any given obstacle so that it only involves a single skill, therefore only a single die roll. The result I think would be to "flatten" and "discretize" the narrative in, well, a "story-like" fashion. The scale of a task matters less than the dimension. Of course this is all solvable to some extent if the player expects that the GM will exercise some discretion but this is exactly the same solution to the use of iterative die rolls.

As a side-note in this, besides the "Take 10" and "Take 20" rules in D&D3, one of the innovations in the rules was to include a "Re-roll" section in many of the skill descriptions that tended to strictly defined when you were allowed to reroll it.  i.e. Rerolls are defined in the rules, rather than by arbitrary GM decision.   Despite this, I don't recall the same sort of complaints that this was disempowering the GM.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think that a rigid "single-roll" approach would be likely to distort decisionmaking in a way that'd feel artificial. And this is really my objection: the rule is presented as something that needs to be rigidly applied as a protection against GM abuse; however, a player who expects that the rule is going to be applied rigidly can easily find ways to exploit it--again as I wrote above, the trick is to approach any given obstacle so that it only involves a single skill, therefore only a single die roll. The result I think would be to "flatten" and "discretize" the narrative in, well, a "story-like" fashion. The scale of a task matters less than the dimension. Of course this is all solvable to some extent if the player expects that the GM will exercise some discretion but this is exactly the same solution to the use of iterative die rolls.

Is there the distinction between your claim of artificial sounding tactics and the earlier believability claims?  Personally, I often find the results of tactics depending on many rerolls to feel artificial.  (e.g. "Let's stay here a roll X ability twenty times")

In general, any rule can be "exploited" if it is applied rigidly.  This applies just as much to rules like "Roll Climb every round" as to Let It Ride.  It's always possible to try to dodge such rules exploitation by dispensing with "rules" and instead having only guidelines that depend on GM judgement.  The eventual result of this is Amber Diceless play and similar systems.  While some people may prefer it, purely depending on GM judgement isn't necessarily objectively better -- since GMs can be exploited by playing on their weaknesses and preferences.  

An old observation of mine was that power gamers tend to specialize as either the "Rules Lawyer" or "Wheedler".  A Rules Lawyer will manipulate whatever hard rules you give out to maximize what comes out.  A Wheedler will socially manipulate to get permission for "GM's option" things which bend or break the rules -- often taking things which the GM wants in the campaign like plot hooks and so forth.  

If anything, I think that the GM discretion route is more likely to lead to story bias, since GM's are more often swayed by what would make a cool story -- at least in my experience.

John, the same thing applies either way--if you "rigidly" allow multiple rolls, you get dumb results and uninteresting decisions, just as if you "rigidly" apply Let it Ride.

There's plenty of evidence that Let it Ride and other elements of BW...not to mention other Forge-inspired maxims...are a corrective against the GMing practics that e.g. Luke & (to take another example) Judd Karlman* took for granted. It's like if your steering is out of alignment, maybe you need to remind yourself to pull the wheel to the right. The problem is that these "rules" only make sense relative to the baseline of "bad" practices: if you apply them to existing functional practices, you'll drive your car into a ditch, so to speak.

So anyway, my approach to any rules is to keep them relevant. A GM who allows multiple rolls with no consequence--but doesn't let you just declare automatic success--is doing a bad job of interpreting the rules. The same applies e.g. to a GM who doesn't enforce a rule to keep it meaningful. A classic example is a game where you can spend points on social skills or charisma, but the GM doesn't ever call for rolls (or at least take the ability into account) in social situations.

Where I'm going is "let's roll X ability 20 times" is only artificial as a tactic if the GM isn't doing the job the GM is supposed to do. It might feel weird to you since you don't like to roll dice a lot but now you seem to be saying something different in reaction to my criticism of Let it Ride.

So here we come to BW: the rule in BW isn't presented as "use common sense and make the rules relevant". It's presented as "stop GMing the way you're used to, and Let it Ride". In the context of Forge ideology, and let's be clear, that's where this aspect of the game comes from, you're supposed to follow the rules so that every group is playing the same. However, if the faults of LiR are supposed to be tempered by discretion, then the rules aren't really written that well: they say one thing to GMs who are used to guiding a story, and quite another to GMs who are used to applying common sense and enforcing the intent of the mechanics.

On the other hand if no discretion is to be applied--if an "empowered" player is going to feel cheated because the GM adjusts Obstacles a bit and/or breaks scenes down into a few rolls--then the rule really is taking us into a different player-stance relative to the game-world, something that can be good or bad depending on what you want. I can really go either way, but if I'm playing in a game that rigidly enforces a player's right to frame and then mechanically resolve conflicts, I think it'll take me farther from immersive roleplay and closer to storytelling crossed with boardgame mechanics. E.g., if you're trying to infiltrate the fortress, then it doesn't really matter mechanically whether you Sneak or Bribe a guard, as long as your skill is the same. The further you go in this direction, the more the actual skill becomes nothing more than a bit of descriptive color. And this is where the dissonance sets in, some players will want to see greater restraints based in internal world-logic, others will either see things differently or simply play for maximum advantage, logic be damned. The need to self-police combined with the temptation to "push it" (especially if other players are getting away with it) seems to me to require a more third-person, collaborative approach than the sense of first-person character-in-world immersion that I get with a GM who enforces the rules fairly and consistently.

*Somewhere I think I remember reading how Judd used to carry around a box of dice he'd shake up so he could roll "secretly", except that he'd just shake it and then make up the results. Apologies if it was someone else; the point is that the frame of reference from which you're applying a corrective matters a lot.

Quote from: jhkimAn old observation of mine was that power gamers tend to specialize as either the "Rules Lawyer" or "Wheedler".  A Rules Lawyer will manipulate whatever hard rules you give out to maximize what comes out.  A Wheedler will socially manipulate to get permission for "GM's option" things which bend or break the rules -- often taking things which the GM wants in the campaign like plot hooks and so forth.  

I think that's a very acute observation. It makes me think of a game group I know of where one player's character generation broke half a dozen rules, but the GM allowed it because for some reason he thinks a demon-possessed character whose alternate demon form comes out to play and destroy things from time to time is cool. That this will also destroy any semblance of a coherent adventuring party or plot doesn't seem to bother him.

Quote from: jhkimIf anything, I think that the GM discretion route is more likely to lead to story bias, since GM's are more often swayed by what would make a cool story -- at least in my experience.

It's nice to see some bias in favour of GMs for a change ;)

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo anyway, my approach to any rules is to keep them relevant. A GM who allows multiple rolls with no consequence--but doesn't let you just declare automatic success--is doing a bad job of interpreting the rules. The same applies e.g. to a GM who doesn't enforce a rule to keep it meaningful. A classic example is a game where you can spend points on social skills or charisma, but the GM doesn't ever call for rolls (or at least take the ability into account) in social situations.

Where I'm going is "let's roll X ability 20 times" is only artificial as a tactic if the GM isn't doing the job the GM is supposed to do.

Hm.  So, there are often rules like "Roll climb every round" or "Roll Search for every 5 foot by 5 foot area".  As I understand it, you're saying that regardless of what a rule says, the GM should either override the rule and declare automatic success or make the repetitive rolls interesting and/or non-artificial-feeling somehow.  Right?  

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo here we come to BW: the rule in BW isn't presented as "use common sense and make the rules relevant". It's presented as "stop GMing the way you're used to, and Let it Ride". In the context of Forge ideology, and let's be clear, that's where this aspect of the game comes from, you're supposed to follow the rules so that every group is playing the same.

The idea of following the rules isn't some bizarre Forge notion invented in 2001 on their boards.  Similarly, making rules that aren't fucking boring isn't a Forge-specific concept that they're trying to infect traditional games with.  I think it's something of an insult to traditional gamers to suggest that.  

If possible, rules should be written so that they aren't fucking stupid and require the GM to override them in order for there to be any semblance of common sense.  That might not be possible in all cases, but it's a good ideal to strive for in my opinion.  There are tons of good games that have come up with better rules that make play better by following them.  For example, D&D3 came up with "Take 10", "Take 20", and the defined rerolls by skill.  

In general, it seems like you're trying to draw in various other Forge stuff into this.  I'm certainly not defending all possible rules in all Forge-related games, and not their rhetoric.  I'm judging that this rule on it's own merits as a rule.

In one of the gaming blogs--I think it was Mearl's--someone noted that over time the nature of the D&D traps-check changes. New players, the guy said, like the requirement to check for traps--to be careful--to exercise caution. Later, he said, they've done that and are no longer interested in the exercise and only want to focus on exception cases.

Whether this is true or not (it certainly is not universally true) it is an interesting observation: if the rules of the game have merit based on somewhat ambiguous factors like the dynamic going on at the table then it's pretty much got to be open to some interpretation.

RPGs occupy a weird area in the "games" domain--things like normal competition (and therefore the role of the referee) don't always apply directly. They are a creative and social activity in the way things like Improv aren't--at least I don't think (do Improv groups stop the activity and shoot the shit for several minutes?).

As such, writing rules that the GM isn't ever expected to ever override is somewhat different from attempting the task with a normal game.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIn one of the gaming blogs--I think it was Mearl's--someone noted that over time the nature of the D&D traps-check changes. New players, the guy said, like the requirement to check for traps--to be careful--to exercise caution. Later, he said, they've done that and are no longer interested in the exercise and only want to focus on exception cases.

Whether this is true or not (it certainly is not universally true) it is an interesting observation: if the rules of the game have merit based on somewhat ambiguous factors like the dynamic going on at the table then it's pretty much got to be open to some interpretation.

Well of course the dynamic around the table changes how they prefer their rules.  Maybe in the beginning a group likes playing Basic D&D, and then later then want the full rules.  Maybe after a time they might decide that they don't want D&D at all, but instead want True20 and don't like feeling so limited by classes.  Groups can change in what sort of rules they want.  These will have different options.  

Does this mean that classes in D&D should be an optional rule, or specifically made "open to interpretation"?  I don't think so.  You're always writing the game to a limited set.  If there are some swing points in the rules that fans of the game are seriously divided over, then you may put in some optional rules.  However, too many optional rules just makes the game wishy-washy and less functional overall.  

If someone wants to play Burning Wheel without "Let It Ride", they're perfectly welcome to.  (At least as far as I'm concerned.)  Despite Gygax's early protests, people can and will implement house rules, variants, and so forth.  

If you try to write your game thinking that you have to please everyone in all moods, you're going to end up with something that pleases nobody.

Quote from: jhkimDoes this mean that classes in D&D should be an optional rule, or specifically made "open to interpretation"?  I don't think so.  You're always writing the game to a limited set.  If there are some swing points in the rules that fans of the game are seriously divided over, then you may put in some optional rules.  However, too many optional rules just makes the game wishy-washy and less functional overall.  

Remember all those NPC-only classes in The Dragon? A lot of people did play with them as PC classes. Some didn't. There are new classes being published today that are sometimes in use and sometimes not.

So, yes, it does seem they're optional. Should be? I dunno--but given the success of D&D maybe people like it that way.

QuoteIf someone wants to play Burning Wheel without "Let It Ride", they're perfectly welcome to.  (At least as far as I'm concerned.)  Despite Gygax's early protests, people can and will implement house rules, variants, and so forth.

It's clear that Luke won't hunt people down and take back the copies of bW they play with if the GM calls for lots of rolls. But does your "as far as I'm concerned" match the tone the rules are written in?

QuoteIf you try to write your game thinking that you have to please everyone in all moods, you're going to end up with something that pleases nobody.

Dunno about that: the "Rule zero" rule might be designed to do exactly that. It seems to please a fair amount of people as well.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoRemember all those NPC-only classes in The Dragon? A lot of people did play with them as PC classes. Some didn't. There are new classes being published today that are sometimes in use and sometimes not.

So, yes, it does seem they're optional. Should be? I dunno--but given the success of D&D maybe people like it that way.

Just a clarification -- when I say "classes should be an optional rule", I didn't mean any specific set of classes, but the entire structure of choosing a class.  For example, D&D could have had an optional point system where no characters had a defined class, but instead bought their BAB, saves, spells, and other abilities directly from character points like GURPS.  That isn't done, and isn't done by almost all D&D players as far as I know.  

(I know of a few systems to have broad classes or design-it-yourself classes, but I don't know of a classless point system.  If you know of one, I'd be interested in a link.)  

Quote from: MarcoIt's clear that Luke won't hunt people down and take back the copies of bW they play with if the GM calls for lots of rolls. But does your "as far as I'm concerned" match the tone the rules are written in?

Is the tone important?  As far as I've seen, most games (including D&D) have plenty of rules that are written as rules -- i.e. they say what you are supposed to do.  Now, there are some exceptions.  Notably, the Fudge core book frequently hedges everything by saying things like "To determine initiative, you could do X, or you could do Y, or you could do Z."  However, D&D and indeed most rules of most games will instead say "Roll 1d20 and add your initiative modifier."

Yah. Ok. I will note we speculated about a 0-level D&D where we would then choose a class. That counts as more than game hacking than optional rules.

I think tone *is* important. I think it does matter and is part of the system-does-matter spectrum (artwork too). How much? At least as much as rules. In the technical realm, CAN is very different in a spec than MUST or MUST not.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI think tone *is* important. I think it does matter and is part of the system-does-matter spectrum (artwork too). How much? At least as much as rules. In the technical realm, CAN is very different in a spec than MUST or MUST not.

I sort of agree, but even if something is written as a rule -- i.e. "Roll Climb for every round moved" rather than "Roll Climb at your discretion, we suggest once for every round moved" -- that can be overridden in play by a given group.  

As I see it, the mechanics that you write in as rules (aka "MUST") should be the core of your system.  People can still change them in practice, but as a designer you're not going to concern yourself much over them doing that.  Those rules are always used in your playtesting.  The game should be playable and fun to your core audience -- though not to everyone -- using these rules as written.  

If you bend or modify some rules yourself in playtesting, then those should be qualified rules -- labelled "advanced" or "optional" or "GM's discretion" or somesuch.  

I think Let It Ride works for me as a core rule.  It's at least playable as-is, and suits my tastes fine that way (even though other people might like something else).  I'm more doubtful of something like "Roll Climb every round" phrased as a rule, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: jhkim...
(I know of a few systems to have broad classes or design-it-yourself classes, but I don't know of a classless point system.  If you know of one, I'd be interested in a link.)  
....

From your description from GURPS it sounds like that is what you are looking for or TFT.  If not I have a home-made system that is essentially classless with a "point" system I think.  I have no website though. :)

I can say from expereince the big difficulty in this systems is in the details, such approaches are unforgiving if not thought out and play tested.  At least for me I want to have a good dynamic range of playable character progression and prevent overpowered one trick ponies.