*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 05, 2014, 09:15:58 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 56 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: Destined (long)  (Read 3128 times)
szilard
Member

Posts: 260


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2003, 01:20:06 PM »

Quote from: SrGrvsaLot
I have another question about the system. Does the GM have a minimum dice pool to oppose Destiny rolls, or if the stars are all lined up correctly does the player get an auto-success? If you subtact 2 dice per applicable descriptor, there's a chance, though not great, of the dice pool being reduced to zero.


John,

I go back and forth on this one. I don't want to provide an outright autosuccess, but there are three options right now that I'm thinking about for when the GM's die pool is reduced below 1:

1) Just keep the die pool at one, minimum.
2) Keep the die pool at one, but subtract one (or more) from the result... sort of a negative Quality.
3) For each die below one, add a die. Take the lowest, rather than the highest, result.

I'm leaning toward 3. While it is more complicated, it is at least continuous with the core mechanic. Any thoughts?

The other issue is resolving ties. This isn't a huge issue, but I will need to explain how to interpret them.

Stuart
Logged

My very own http://www.livejournal.com/users/szilard/">game design journal.
SrGrvsaLot
Member

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2003, 01:31:58 PM »

There's a slight problem with option three, but you might not consider it a problem at all: the chance of the player failing is exactly the same with 1 opposition die as "negative" one opposition die. After that, the probability of a player failing quickly drops off so that if there are many "negative" dice, it's practically an auto-success anyway.

Aside from that little quirk, all three of your proposed solutions sound pretty good.
Logged

John Frazer, Cancer
SrGrvsaLot
Member

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2003, 06:02:06 PM »

Oh, I had an idea about ties for Destiny rolls. Why not have a tied Destiny roll count as a failure unless the player spends a plot point, in which case the tie counts as a success? Rolling Destiny represents leaving your success and failure to fate, right? Well, Fortune favors the bold and if the player is unwilling to go that extra mile to seize the opportunity his destiny provides (by spending a plot point), then destiny is not going to do it for him.
Logged

John Frazer, Cancer
szilard
Member

Posts: 260


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2003, 07:53:37 AM »

Okay... at this point, both Determination and Destiny have descriptors. For Determination. these are "commitments," but I don't have a term for Destiny. I am toying with "fates," but I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Any suggestions?

Also, this move (thanks again, John) allows me to neatly integrate the acquisition of Plot Points. Whenever a character makes a Destiny or Determination roll that strongly involves one of the descriptors for the statistic rolled, the character will gain a number of plot points equal to the number showing on the lowest die rolled. (If the character's roll involves two applicable descriptors, the number of plot points will be equal to the second lowest die, and so on). This will, generally, mean that characters who depend on lower scores will tend to end up with more plot points (assuming that they pursue their descriptors equally) than those with higher scores. This is a good thing for various reasons...


Stuart
Logged

My very own http://www.livejournal.com/users/szilard/">game design journal.
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!