gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: A pattern in criticism?

Wed 28 Jul 2021, 16:36

You can always let your character use Insight before the interaction to get some "insight" on the best approach if your players ask about it.
IRL if you never met someone before you also do not know what is the best way to approach them, why would be different in game?
I don't like the language of "Use Insight" because it leads to players saying "I'll use {insert skill}!" and then rolling dice. I prefer them to say what they
are trying to accomplish, and if dice are necessary I will ask for it.

But otherwise, yes, this is what we did in 1e.

Now, the thing about doing it "before the interaction" is that it becomes a no brainer. Why not roll Insight in case you get some additional information? There's no real decision-making there. It becomes the equivalent of "rolling Detect Traps" before every %$@#ing door or chest in a dungeon. (Which I also loathe.). So I would make it an alternate action during the interaction: you can either try to score a success in the Council, or effectively give up your turn in order to try to get more information about the best approach. Then it's an actual decision. (As a general comment, I think this sort of trade-off is what's missing in many/most social interaction and exploration pillars of RPGs, and is why people complain it is less interesting than combat.)
If there is any obvious knowledge your character would know/sense, you just provide it to them without rolling.
Sure, but I prefer leaving hints in the description or otherwise signaling instead of outright telling, especially in response to specific player actions. E.g., a player glances around the room looking for hints that might tell them something about the NPC. Maybe it's oddly devoid of any instruments, or maybe there seem to be a great number of old books, or whatever.
 
User avatar
aramis
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: A pattern in criticism?

Thu 29 Jul 2021, 00:15

It's sort of my understanding that this is where degrees of success come in. This would give the LM a way to hide NPCs being more resistant to players by requiring a 6 or even two 6's (or more) if the NPC is extremely resistant for whatever reason. This does not, however, solve the issue of how to make NPCs more open to players without it being obvious.
So where the "old" way might be to let the player roll and say, "Nope, a 15 fails", in TOR 2E you'd let the player roll and even if they beat their nominal TN but don't have a Tengwar you'd say, "Actually, she doesn't seem very impressed...".
I find that mode unsatisfying in the extreme... not the least of which is that it's already a truth of the dice mechanics that when low skill characters succeed, they tend to have better than base success. on non peak attributes.
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: A pattern in criticism?

Thu 29 Jul 2021, 05:11

I find that mode unsatisfying in the extreme... not the least of which is that it's already a truth of the dice mechanics that when low skill characters succeed, they tend to have better than base success. on non peak attributes.
Interesting. “Tend to” is an over-generalization here, unless there’s an assumed but unexpressed “…relative to higher skill characters.” But, sure, the lower the probability of success, the greater the likelihood that a success resulted from high values on one or more dice. But the higher skill character will still have not only a higher success rate but also a higher rate of elevated successes overall, when failures are also considered.

So I have to admit I’m scratching my head at what your objection is. But also genuinely curious.

Also interested in what your other objections are, even if they are less of a factor than this first one.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 3 guests