Making things hard for your players

Just got your book, can't find a copy, have a cool adventure idea or story? Chat about it here.

Moderators: PEG Jodi, The Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
VonDan
Legendary
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:36 am
Contact:

#21 Postby VonDan » Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:46 pm

the thread title bring to mind the Donna Summer Song

"She works hard for the Bennys"

User avatar
Locke
Novice
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Springville, UT
Contact:

#22 Postby Locke » Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:44 pm

I know that this idea will end up being essentially the same, mechanically, as adding in negative circumstance modifiers to the players' rolls, but what do you all think about requiring raises on rolls instead of imposing penalties? For example, the party needs to bypass security to retrieve the Macguffin from the Big Bad's super vault, but the vault's lock is so difficult to crack that the Thief needs to get two raises on her Lockpicking roll to succeed.

Again, I know it ends up being pretty much sixes on mechanics. It just seems like the players might be less likely to riot in this kind of situation. :)
Josh Leavitt, Editor
PrepMyBook.com | Let's get you published

farik
Seasoned
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:45 pm

#23 Postby farik » Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:55 pm

Requiring 2 raises is like a-8 modifier. That's pretty harsh in my opinion.

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 6857
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

#24 Postby ValhallaGH » Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:03 pm

Locke wrote:I know that this idea will end up being essentially the same, mechanically, as adding in negative circumstance modifiers to the players' rolls, but what do you all think about requiring raises on rolls instead of imposing penalties?

Penalties are kinder. There's more granularity. Each raise required is a -4 on the roll; there are three numbers before 4, and any of them may be a better representation of the penalty.

I've used "cumulative successes" before. "This requires three successes on a Lockpicking (-2)." I don't care if that's from a success with two raises or from three consecutive successful rolls - as long as there are three "got it"s then I'm happy.

Oh, and your suggestion devalues the Raise. Rolling a raise should be a good thing! It shouldn't be a 'crap, I almost got' moment. That's one of the reasons I tell my players most of their penalties up front - so when they roll a raise, it really feels like it. :cool:
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

User avatar
Locke
Novice
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Springville, UT
Contact:

#25 Postby Locke » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:00 pm

Those are excellent points, Valhalla. I hadn't considered that requiring raises for things might take some of the fun away from getting a raise. I think it came from prepping for the wrap-up of my Necessary Evil game, where the plot point mentions something about requiring two raises on a roll to accomplish something. I'll just need to work out exactly how I want to handle difficult tasks.
Josh Leavitt, Editor

PrepMyBook.com | Let's get you published


Return to “SW General Chat & Game Stories”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests