Re: Rolling the Dice (Was: Re: T'orites and armor)

[Steve Ames <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>]

Bollucks. AQ is unbound. Yet clearly, by your definition,
there is never a reason to buy the skill above 12? I really
don't care what the book says, we are discussing how we
rule on it and why. So far nearly everyone has said they
allow or recommend higher checks in some instances.

Also the skill, as written in the book, says nothing about
X-Ray vision.

-Steve

On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 02:26:19PM -0800, Andrew Luers wrote:
> 
> 
>    Looks like I step in it.  The last point I will
> bring up is to say is unlike Find Traps, Immobilze
> clearly states 2D6. I an sorry but I think the skill
> at a base of 400 proves information on where to hit or
> not. The prayer at rank X should be able to see
> missing kineys or bone plates under the skin.
> 
>   Andrew L.
> 
> 
> --- "Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > There are some skills that the GM rolls and not the
> > player. Find Traps
> > is one of these. The GM makes the roll because
> > otherwise the player is
> > granted too much information. In a succeed/fail
> > scenario a player can
> > roll the dice... but if there are more options? How
> > about:
> > 
> > For example, lets assume that There _ARE_ traps. The
> > player rolls his
> > 'find traps' skill and succeed. Obviously the player
> > finds the traps
> > right? But what if he fails? Obviously he doesn't
> > find them but he also
> > knows that he failed his check and will just either
> > try it again or ask
> > someone else to also check for traps. If the GM
> > rolls the dice and
> > simply says 'you didn't find any traps' the player
> > isn't sure which way
> > it went. The player isn't sure if there aren't any
> > traps or he just
> > didn't find any. This is in keeping with reality.
> > You can never be 100%
> > certain, you can only be sure of what you saw. A
> > failed roll might turn
> > up something that looks like a trap but a successful
> > roll would have
> > dismissed it as not a real trap.
> > 
> > That said... greg wasn't suggesting telling the
> > player how many dice to
> > roll or using the rather lame successive dice thing.
> > He was saying that
> > they don't know how many dice to roll until they
> > try.
> > 
> > Example: the player goes for the immobilize. He
> > rolls 2d6 and annonces a
> > successful immobilize. The GM says, sorry he doesn't
> > go down. The player
> > at that point knows he has to roll more dice.
> > 
> > The same thing could apply to the above detect traps
> > example. It would
> > seem that there are always two ways to do it:
> > 
> > 1. the player rolls and the GM can say that even a
> > success is a failure
> > because they didn't roll enough dice. The player
> > knows that either it
> > can't be done or its going to require more dice.
> > 
> > 2. the GM rolls the number of dice the player
> > requests and then
> > announces success or failure and lets the player
> > decide what happened.
> > 
> > I'm more for #1 ... even in the detect traps
> > scenario. Even if there are
> > no traps the GM might decide that it would take a
> > 3d6 check to determine
> > that fact because the room is filled with smoke. So
> > when the player
> > rolls 2d6 and is successful the GM can always say:
> > "you detect no
> > traps". A good player should recognize that some
> > situations require more
> > dice and not go with the minimum roll.
> > 
> > Blah. Had my wheaties this morning :) (pay no
> > attention to the inherent
> > self contradictions in this message... they aren't
> > there... your getting
> > sleepy... Terrence and Phillip rule...)
> > 
> > -Steve
> > 
> > > no, the player made an incorrect assumption and
> > > jumped the gun.  Wait to find out how many dice
> > > it'll be, then roll.
> > >
> > > Wright
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Andrew Luers" <orc_food@yahoo.com>
> > > To: "Greg Mowczko" <mooch@cioe.com>
> > > Cc: <gmlist@cioe.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 11:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: T'orites and armor
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >   Greg .. You don't tell the player how many die
> > they
> > > > need to roll!!! What do the poor persons do,
> > roll one
> > > > at a time to see how many they get? I have been
> > know
> > > > to do that in the past but almost never for
> > skills.
> > > >
> > > >   Now to you srewing the person with the case
> > cost 400
> > > > skill. The skill clearly states 2d6 for unarmed
> > > > tergets.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Greg Mowczko <mooch@cioe.com> wrote:
> > > > > As a GM I've had people try to immobilize
> > someone
> > > > > who wasn't normal and ran
> > > > > it as following:
> > > > >
> > > > > Player: Is he wearing armor?
> > > > > Me: None you can see
> > > > > Player: I immobilize him ( 2d6 roll ) Made it.
> > > > > Me: Results, he is still standing
> > > > > Player: What I made my check
> > > > > Me: Correction you would have made your check
> > if it
> > > > > took 2d6 but that was
> > > > > a 3d6 check since you didn't know he is
> > missing the
> > > > > kidney you tried
> > > > > to hit ( or something like that )
> > > > > Player: F*ck
> > > > > Me: Does a 24 hit? How about a 25 and an 18?
> > Take 26
> > > > > points
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm for extra dice to the check with
> > possibilities
> > > > > of the player not knowing
> > > > > they need to roll more dice to succede until
> > they
> > > > > try. Just like detect traps
> > > > > is supposed to be done by the GM. You don't
> > know if
> > > > > you failed or not you just
> > > > > know you didn't find a thing ( or you waste
> > time
> > > > > unarming a piece of hair that
> > > > > go stuck in the lock that you thought was a
> > trap )
> > > > > Greg
> > > > >
> > > > > > From steve@virtual-voodoo.com  Tue Mar  7
> > 14:10:32
> > > > > 2000
> > > > > > From: "Steven E. Ames"
> > <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "John  Hogg" <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "John  Hogg" <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>,
> > > > > <gmlist@cioe.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: T'orites and armor
> > > > > > Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:10:01 -0500
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clothing and Robes are different. Clothing
> > does
> > > > > not provide any DV.
> > > > > > Standard everyday attire or business
> > clothing
> > > > > gives you 0 CDV. Hence you
> > > > > > can immobilize most people with no extra
> > effort.
> > > > > So... you don't have to
> > > > > > be naked to get zero CDV... you just can't
> > be
> > > > > wearing anything armored
> > > > > > or padded. Normal clothing also does not
> > affect
> > > > > your movement rate (GM
> > > > > > adjudication for those tight leather pants
> > you
> > > > > like to wear).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm still pondering your extra difficulty
> > check...
> > > > > are you suggesting
> > > > > > something along the way of an extra die per
> > CDV?
> > > > > So 3d6 for robes, 6d6
> > > > > > for plate?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "John Hogg" <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>
> > > > > > To: "Steven E. Ames"
> > <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "John Hogg" <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>;
> > > > > <gmlist@cioe.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 1:53 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: T'orites and armor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > 
> === message truncated ===