TheRPGSite

From the "Best RPG Rule" thread:

QuoteI'm inclined to think highly of Burning Wheel's "Let it Roll" rule ... it's much like the law against double jeopardy, that you can't be forced to roll on the same thing over and over again. If you succeeded at the roll then you succeeded at that roll, and you can just keep on truckin' until something happens to make the task harder.

Make a spectacular role to sneak into a barbarian camp? Then you've snuck in. You don't have to check every time you cross an open space. You bamboozled 'em! Skulk to your heart's content. Until, of course, you try to steal the gem from the chieftain's head-piece ... that pops up past the difficulty of what you'd succeeded at before, so then you gotta roll.

It's a nice, simple rule that's easily portable into many different systems. It lets people get their money's worth from risky rolls, but at the same time it lets them know when they're about to take the big chance. You can choose to walk away without looting the chieftain's head-piece, and be pretty damn sure that you'll get clear ... that lends weight to your gamble, if you take it.

I'm moving this here because some folks want to debate it and I don't want that to drown out the other rules that people think rock. I won't fully quote the other peoples' arguments but basically:

Pundit - That rule is stupid because a GM should be able to tell you to roll as many times as he wants.

blakkie - Yeah, and you should also throw out every other rule too.

Wil - (quoted because it contains a lot of words and I'll screw it up if I paraphrase)

QuoteYou're right - all it does is put down on paper in a no-nonsense way the way that most people play, which is to make rolls when it makes sense to, no more and no less. Some people are stupid enough to need that sort of thing spelled out for them, as evidenced by threads I've seen where people say they've played X game for years and never once thought they could change Y, when Y is common sense for everyone (these are usually the same people that claim they have been psychologically damaged by rules systems).

Otherwise, why not have the PC make a DEX check for every footstep they make? That's a change in situation - marbles can roll from nowhere and get under their feet! Why not have the PC make the roll to grab the horse's reins, then a roll to put one foot in the stirrup, then another roll to hoist themselves up, then another roll to plant their ass in the saddle. Hell, they should all be seperate skills!

"Let it Ride" (which I think is what the rule is actually called) I think is more about setting the baseline with the roll. Unless the new lock is more difficult than the last, or the new guard is much more alert than the last - why waste time rolling again? It's saying, "You snuck past the two hyper-alert, hopped up on goofballs guards in the entire camp getting in...why roll to sneak past the one that's asleep?" or "You picked this super complicated lock to get into this safe, why roll to pick the flimsy hasp lock on the box that's inside?".

There was also some stuff about licking grandma pussy as a task resolution mechanic. I'm just as dumbfounded as you.

Personally I like the rule for the most part. There was an example given about picking multiple locks in a row, which I'd never do. Each lock is the start and end of it's own seperate task. But for sneaking around I do it.

I've had GMs in the past who, instead of setting a higher difficulty to make a task harder they'll just make you roll over and over again. For instance, if they don't want you to sneak into a camp they'll have you roll for every single gaurd you have to pass. If they do want you to sneak in a single roll (or even no roll at all) is made. That sorta crap bugs me. If you want the task to be harder, just make it harder.

Brought over to save keep Tony's thread on track.....

Quote from: RPGPunditWouldn't "having to pick another lock" be a change in situation?

Not nessasarily. If the number of dice you are rolling hasn't changed, then likely not. Difficulty of the task, the Obstacle (the number of successful dice you need to roll to accomplish the task), does NOT by itself trigger it. Which makes Tony's description a bit suspect.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean if not, shit, why not just have every player roll each possible skill/attribute just ONCE and then dispose with dice forever?  

The scope is laid out in advance, is generally are the conciquences of failure. The scope is also needed to determine the penalties/bonuses to your dice.

QuoteAnd if so, basically the "let it roll" rule is fucking meaningless, because it doesn't actually change anything from how (normal, well-adjusted) people normally play.

Well I'll say that it definately is a change from how most RPG rules tell me to play. *shrug* Of course people do rewrite RPGs all the time. It's just nice when you don't have to rewrite rules to have them make sense. You know, good rules, which is what this thread is about.

P.S. Keep in mind that the rule impinges as much on the player, if not more. It basically nixes just rerolling to try have something happen. Also keep in mind that in BW at times it is the player that is likely to be driving for a chance to roll because that is how the skill is improved.

QuoteDifficulty of the task, the Obstacle (the number of successful dice you need to roll to accomplish the task), does NOT by itself trigger it. Which makes Tony's description a bit suspect.

What does change it then?

Quote from: blakkieWhich makes Tony's description a bit suspect.

Yeah, that's fair.  I just rattled it off the top of my head ... I thought the details were going to be buried under a mountain of other rules that people love, y'see :D

My group generally Lets it Ride for the duration of a scene, which I realize is pretty nebulous.

Probably the best way is to think about what the larger conflict is: You're trying to steal the Ruby of Radagammasteron? You Let it Ride for all of the sub-tasks involved in breaking in and stealing it. Note that Let it Ride does not apply to the detailed resolution mechanics like Fight and Duel of Wits.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhat does change it then?

Generally leaving the scope for which the initial roll was made. Sometimes the scope is the entire gaming session.

In Tony' example it may be a different roll for the Chieftan, but not just because the Ob is higher.  If the Chieftan is a really important part of the situation for the table, what they want to focus the game on, then it could be a new roll. The focus of the game can be signaled by, say, really high stakes for a failure/success getting by the Chieftan.  But if they knew about the Chieftan, or that this was going to be a really sneaky mission, and the general severity of the conciquences of failure before the initial roll they likely would have just used one roll for it for all the checks.

Basic rule of thumb is all about pacing. If people are interested in something, what they want the game to be about, then it'll be a roll. Otherwise Let It Ride because rolling again is cluttering up the game.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, that's fair.  I just rattled it off the top of my head ... I thought the details were going to be buried under a mountain of other rules that people love, y'see :D

Instead it got buried under a mountain of crap? Sorry 'bout that. :eek:

That sounds a lot like how we already do it. I'll only force a new roll if the situation changes enough to warrant it and it will make the game more interesting to see a roll happen. Otherwise you just keep sneaking along (or whatever).

I would never use the Let It Ride rule in a traditional dungeon crawl adventure.  But for something more plot-oriented it looks like a great shortcut.

Quote from: jrientsI would never use the Let It Ride rule in a traditional dungeon crawl adventure.  But for something more plot-oriented it looks like a great shortcut.

This gets more to the point than any other perspective, ironically.

It's a matter of taste, folks - how much granularity do you want in your resolution system?  Watch folks claim "your conflict isn't with the sleeping guard, it's with the chieftan!" Yeah? Sez You.  Can't you see a group who desires to play in such a way that your "conflict" is with the guard you are trying to get by right now?

If not, than you're falling into the "My way is the one true way" discussion.

As I've said before, there is a huge sliding scale of resolution granularity.  Using two common terms - from Task to Conflict. Both can be reduced to absurd extremes.  Which you use may depend on the group, the setting, or may even change moment to moment.  As long as the group is cool with it, and it's known.

EDIT: And the implication of Pundit's view (the way it's being taken, I think), that every guard must be rolled is as much One True Way thinking. Ironically, I think Pundit might be more accurate, as I think his argument is it's the GM's decision. It might be better said as It's the GM's choice as long as the group has determined the guidelines/rules ahead of time.

Quote from: jrientsI would never use the Let It Ride rule in a traditional dungeon crawl adventure.  But for something more plot-oriented it looks like a great shortcut.

We actually just started up an 'Old School' Burning Wheel campaign, and Let it Ride has been working pretty well for us, so far. For instance, our elven ranger used his Stealth skill to scout out a cavern and look for some prisoners we were supposed to rescue. He had to pass several orc sentries, and the like: he rolled well, and was able to find the prisoners and give us a good idea of the obstacles before us, all in about five minutes of real time. Honestly, it didn't feel like we were missing out on any of the traditional flavor, at all, and it certainly streamlined play.

You do have to adjust how you look at the consequences of failure, and how you set up your dungeons, though. Otherwise you end up with doors you can't pass, and will never be able to pass, and other problematic outcomes.

Let me clarify what I meant by 'traditional dungeon crawl'.  I'm referring to the kind of game where entering, surviving, clearing, and looting a big multi-level dungeon is itself the entire point of the outing.  Your rescue scenario is exactly what I mean by 'more plot-oriented'.

Quote from: jrientsLet me clarify what I meant by 'traditional dungeon crawl'.  I'm referring to the kind of game where entering, surviving, clearing, and looting a big multi-level dungeon is itself the entire point of the outing.  Your rescue scenario is exactly what I mean by 'more plot-oriented'.

Okay, I've got you and understand the difference. I would like to point out that the ranger still had to overcome each sentry, individually. Being seperate individuals, they each had a chance to roll their Observation vs. the rangers Stealthy result (which was operating under Let it Ride).

On one level you can use Let it Ride to ratchet things up to a pure conflict resolution level, but you can also use it to simply streamline the amount of rolling at the table, which is how we're using it for this particular game.

Of course, if stopping at each door, listening, checking for traps, and forcing it open is something your group likes, Let it Ride is going to be the shittiest rule, ever. Which I can understand: I likes to roll the dice, too.

Tim

Quote from: TimWhich I can understand: I likes to roll the dice, too.

This is why I don't like Cheetoism.  Some game we don't have snacks.  But every game we roll dice.  Except that one time I ran Nobilis.  What can I say?  Sometimes young men like to experiment a bit before they settle down.

Quote from: jrientsLet me clarify what I meant by 'traditional dungeon crawl'.  I'm referring to the kind of game where entering, surviving, clearing, and looting a big multi-level dungeon is itself the entire point of the outing.  Your rescue scenario is exactly what I mean by 'more plot-oriented'.

It isn't so much about "plot" as it is about having tighter control over the environment, if you are willing to toss aside "colour".

For example in a dungeon if you don't want lots of rolls to disarm/disable a trap made you don't put in traps. Of course you lose the "colour" of a trap around every corner.  Same applies to climbing checks and such. Just put in a 20' climb instead of a 200' climb if you want to pull back on the climbing rolls.  Or to fairly closely approximate the Let It Ride rule just attach a note to the climb that either it's all really easy (that even a blind, lame, rhino can Take 10) expect for a specific 20'. Or attach a special overriding rule (basically usurp the core rules) that it's only 1 check to make the 200' climb.

For the large part Let It Ride allows you to dynamically taloir to your group the scale of how you partition the physical world and time. You're right that is something that isn't done in most dungeons, traditionally. Whether or not they would benefit from it has a lot more to do with how you'd like to colour you dungeon, and where you draw the line on "pixel bitching". For me using a single check for finding traps for an entire session or section of the dungeon sure would be nice.

EDIT: It isn't really about rolling dice or not. I like my dice rolling too. I just like rolling dice about things I care about. Yes a "traditional" dungeon crawl says you are to care about anything put before you, but in practice that doesn't cut it for me. YMMV.  Let It Ride doesn't nessasarily lower the overall number of dice you roll in a session, although it does stop those binge spurts of rerolling the same over and over looking for that single good/bad number to come up.  Thankfully D&D 3e removed some of that with Take 20/Take 10.

Quote from: blakkieThankfully D&D 3e removed some of that with Take 20/Take 10.

I'd say Take 20/Take 10 and Let it Ride are very remote cousins, because Let it Ride doesn't say anything about qualitative about what your character can do. You have to put up with the result of your roll for the duration of the scene, whether it's good or bad.

It certainly sharpens the significance of those rolls, when you know you're going to have to put up with the results for a significant amount of time.

A cool (to me) side effect of LiR is that you  can have some interesting times trying to find a different approach to a problem, from giving other player characters a chance to shine with their abilities, to mustering helping dice, to finding, as players, a way to effect the 'significant change' that allows you to re-roll.

So am I correct in understanding that under Let It Ride you roll once, and then retain that roll - but if there is opposition they each get a chance to roll against that? Because that's different than I was understanding for some reason and I like that idea more. It then becomes a gamble. "Hey, I got a really good stealth roll. I'll Let it Ride...oh shit, that Orc rolled higher than me. If I hadn't Let It Ride, I could've had a chance to roll better than him."

Dammit, I need to get Burning Wheel. I had more than enough gift credit from Amazon to get it, but I couldn't find it anywhere (besides some old used copies and then only one book) so I got Exalted books instead.

I like this rule. My only gripe is that Burning Wheel didn't invent it. It first (to my knowledge) appeared in Maelstrom Storytelling as "Scene-based Resolution" (you made one roll for all action in an entire scene, and applied the roll result throughout). It was innovative in 1997. In BW it was still good, just not original.

It's still original if whoever wrote BW had never heard of MS. :)

Quote"Hey, I got a really good stealth roll. I'll Let it Ride...oh shit, that Orc rolled higher than me. If I hadn't Let It Ride, I could've had a chance to roll better than him."

My understanding (gleaned solely from this thread) is that you don't get a choice as the player whether to let it ride or not. The rule is also there to prevent countless rerolling by players looking to get the best result.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy understanding (gleaned solely from this thread) is that you don't get a choice as the player whether to let it ride or not. The rule is also there to prevent countless rerolling by players looking to get the best result.

So is there like a little slot machine that when it comes up all badgers or something kicks "Let It Ride" in? Have I spent too much time in casinos?

I think (again just from what I've gleaned here) that whenever you make a skill check that could conceivably last for a while, let it ride happens automatically.

It still isn't original if MS did it in 1997. It's just a really formal take on what many GM's had done independently.  Most games, to my knowledge, are not very clear on how often to roll, or for that matter 'when' to roll. They say 'roll stealth to be stealthy' and not much more, or 'Roll stealth vs. notice' if they use it as an opposed check.

So, some GM's pixel bitch, some GM's roll opposed checks for every guard, some GM's have you roll to see if you sneak the fuck in and get back out with the information.  One roll, essentially a 'let it ride'.

So along comes a few games presumably written by people who were tired of being pixel bitched and rather than just GM their games there way, formally wrote down the way THEY liked GM's to handle things.  Nothing original, just more sticking their mitts where they didn't belong.  Is it a good rule? Sure, I've played that way for years without it. Do I want the game to tell me to do it? No. Do I think it's particularly inventive, clever or orginal? :rolleyes:

Quote from: WilSo am I correct in understanding that under Let It Ride you roll once, and then retain that roll - but if there is opposition they each get a chance to roll against that?

Sort of, but if there are 4 or 5 opponents they'd likely still only have one roll total (depending at the scale at which you are running). Even if you encountered them at different points of the whole senario. For a detection you'd use the highest skill value amoung the group, plus extra dice if it is the others are able to help.
EDIT: To bring it back to Tony's example, what might happen is to one roll for the grunts (that's a single roll coving going both in and out) and one roll for the Chieftan. You do that if you want to differentiate where you fail.  If you are really only interested in whether or not you get by the Chieftan, or maybe this is a subgroup of the whole table and you want to wrap it up fast to get other people back in on the action, then it's just the Chieftan (assuming he's got the best dice, otherwise it's the best grunt) rolling. Maybe with helping dice, maybe not.

Quote"Hey, I got a really good stealth roll. I'll Let it Ride...oh shit, that Orc rolled higher than me. If I hadn't Let It Ride, I could've had a chance to roll better than him."

Except that it isn't really a choice. You say what you plan to do, you roll what you roll, and unless you can figure out a way to justify a reroll (see Tim's post above) that's what you go ahead on the stated plan with.

And yes, that means sometimes you fail and you go in knowing you have failed or are very likely to fail. Good chance you even know the conciquences. But failing is usually more than half the fun, and quite often a great opportunity.

QuoteDammit, I need to get Burning Wheel. I had more than enough gift credit from Amazon to get it, but I couldn't find it anywhere (besides some old used copies and then only one book) so I got Exalted books instead.

I think the only online distributor they use is Key20. So either there or in your FLGS to buy new books. I don't know the exact reaon why. They don't sell the whole book in PDF either. Wierdly you can buy parts of the Character Burner in PDF though :ponder: , and Burning Empires is available in PDF.

Quote from: blakkieExcept that it isn't really a choice. You say what you plan to do, you roll what you roll, and unless you can figure out a way to justify a reroll (see Tim's post above) that's what you go ahead on the stated plan with.

I got it. So it's telling the GM when the player gets to roll in explicit terms (ostensibly removing GM fiat from the equation) and yet at the same time does not give the player any additional flexibility in deciding to reroll either. It prevents a stupid cycle of "Can I roll again?" "No" "Can I roll again?" "No" from the player side, as well as "Give me 15 Stealth rolls!" from the GM side, as well as making the rules more neutral. I'm not seeing the huge problem except for maybe in a "This is my house and I'll do what I want! Even if it's exactly what someone else is doing!" sort of way.

Quote from: WilI'm not seeing the huge problem except for maybe in a "This is my house and I'll do what I want! Even if it's exactly what someone else is doing!" sort of way.

Given that it's the people in the house that set the scope, that isn't really an issue unless you are a cranky, yellow, electric bolt tossing rat shaking an angry but impotent fist at the empty sky. ;)

I can understand Pundit's point of view. From my point of view, the rule is stupid too. I get to decide when to roll.

However, I do think it could be a service to certain anal-retentive gamers who need it spelled out that they don't have to roll all the time. I suppose a lot of folks here will not find this concept novel. Surprisingly, I think some gamers need the advice.

It's like all those threads of malajusted gamers on RPG.net asking what to do about the stinky group member who empties the fridge every session. Any normal person knows what to do (ditch his ass). Some gamers just aren't normal persons and need the obvious to be pointed out.

I'm also reminded of those "magic isn't real" disclaimers in some game books. It's scary but I think they might actually be useful sometimes. I prefer not to know when, though. :D

Quote from: blakkieGiven that it's the people in the house that set the scope, that isn't really an issue unless you are a cranky, yellow, electric bolt tossing rat shaking an angry but impotent fist at the empty sky. ;)

Get it right, Waldo, I'm shaking an angry, electrically charged, fist... at the book.  I don't tempt the sky, it's got more lightning than me. :D

Quote from: SpikeGet it right, Waldo, I'm shaking an angry, electrically charged, fist... at the book.  I don't tempt the sky, it's got more lightning than me. :D

So what you are really saying is that you can't manage to get it skyward? Yeah, I figured so. ;)  Anyway I heard that there is a great thread about "the meaning of original" over here. (http://www.practical-pet-care.com/argument_forum.php) Enjoy, my pet rat. ;)

@Consonant Dude

Will summed it up pretty well in the originating thread, and I don't see it here so I'll copy-paste:

Quote from: WilConversely, why is it bad to make it part of the rules if reasonable people already do it? I mean, that's generally how rules get made in the first place - reasonable people already behave that way, so there is a consensus that this is something that everyone should do. They become rules because of the unreasonable people who don't behave that way.

Basically you are saying is a good way to play, but that you'd rather have rules that told you something different?  Gee, that sounds to me like you think it is fundemantally sound to play with that rule, but you don't seem to want your RPG rule cluttered up with rules that work well and would rather have in their place rules that needed to be changed to function for you?

Quote from: Consonant DudeSome gamers just aren't normal persons and need the obvious to be pointed out.

Gee. I just like it because if I'm playing in some random Burning Wheel game, say at a con, I KNOW I'm not going to have to roll fifteen times to sneak into the Bandit Camp, each additional roll bringing me closer to inevitable failure, because it's in the book. You know. A rule.

If you haven't suffered through something similar to the above scenario as a player or, conversely, the classic player's classic "I rolled a 13 to pick the lock. you fail I rolled an 8, this time you fail I roll a...fuck it, while you're concentrating on the lock, you're attacked by Tiamat", you've been pretty lucky.

I don't think anyone's claimed that it's an innovative oh-my-god, this is so unique it's set my pants on fire, rule. It's just a rule they like!

Quote from: blakkieBasically you are saying is a good way to play, but that you'd rather have rules that told you something different?  Gee, that sounds to me like you think it is fundemantally sound to play with that rule, but you don't seem to want your RPG rule cluttered up with rules that work well and would rather have in their place rules that needed to be changed to function for you?

I agree with blakkie and Wil here.  If it's something which is what good people do, then it's a good fucking rule.  What -- the rules aren't supposed to say when you should roll the dice or how often you should roll the dice?  What the hell?  That's what rules do.  

Repetitive rolls are, in my opinion, just plain stupid.  They eat up time when you could just fold the difficulty into a single roll.  And yet time and time again, I see both real GMs and published rules specifically call for repetitive rolls.  Often there will be a section specifically encouraging repetitive rolls, saying that if you want to make a task more "dramatic" (or somesuch) you should force the player to roll a bunch of times and collect up successes.  

For example, the rules in D&D say that you roll a Climb check for every move action.  So climbing up a wall is a roll every 15', and if people want to climb up a 90-foot cliff, they have to make six rolls.  The rules tell you when and how often to roll.  You might tell me that good GMs don't do this -- but then the rules should say that.  

The Burning Wheel rules say something different.  They say you should only roll one Climb check regardless of how tall the wall/cliff/whatever is.  If it's taller, then that should add to the difficulty of the roll and the time to complete it rather than making people roll over and over again to see if they fail.  Now, there might be better ways of phrasing that rule or of eliminating repetitive rolls -- but that's an extra improvement.

Quote from: blakkieBasically you are saying is a good way to play, but that you'd rather have rules that told you something different?  Gee, that sounds to me like you think it is fundemantally sound to play with that rule, but you don't seem to want your RPG rule cluttered up with rules that work well and would rather have in their place rules that needed to be changed to function for you?

No I'm saying I don't really mind if something I already do is codified in the rules and the rules work well. Because the ones that don't get changed anyway, so if I don't like them telling me how to play the game I just ignore it anyway. Kind of like how I am with Exalted combat - we don't play using all of the combat rules. It doesn't bother me that the rules I don't use are there because it was my choice not to use them in the first place.

Quote from: blakkie@Consonant Dude

Basically you are saying is a good way to play, but that you'd rather have rules that told you something different?  Gee, that sounds to me like you think it is fundemantally sound to play with that rule, but you don't seem to want your RPG rule cluttered up with rules that work well and would rather have in their place rules that needed to be changed to function for you?

No, no. I'm saying I understand (and share) Pundit's lack of enthusiasm for the rule. I think it's a decent rule but am basically disappointed that some gamers need such obvious stuff to be pointed out to them.

I personally don't need it nor am I impressed by it because we handle dice rolling just fine in my groups but I certainly don't object to the presence of this "rule" in a RPG.

The wording of the rule does seem a little confusing to me. I would have prefered GM advices instead of a rule. But it's an ok rule.

Quote from: jhkimRepetitive rolls are, in my opinion, just plain stupid.  They eat up time when you could just fold the difficulty into a single roll.  And yet time and time again, I see both real GMs and published rules specifically call for repetitive rolls.  Often there will be a section specifically encouraging repetitive rolls, saying that if you want to make a task more "dramatic" (or somesuch) you should force the player to roll a bunch of times and collect up successes.  

For example, the rules in D&D say that you roll a Climb check for every move action.  So climbing up a wall is a roll every 15', and if people want to climb up a 90-foot cliff, they have to make six rolls.  The rules tell you when and how often to roll.  You might tell me that good GMs don't do this -- but then the rules should say that.  

The Burning Wheel rules say something different.  They say you should only roll one Climb check regardless of how tall the wall/cliff/whatever is.  If it's taller, then that should add to the difficulty of the roll and the time to complete it rather than making people roll over and over again to see if they fail.  Now, there might be better ways of phrasing that rule or of eliminating repetitive rolls -- but that's an extra improvement.

Jesus, is this what's gotten' some folks knickers in a twist. Man, I've been doing stuff like this for years. It never ceases to amaze me, a designer puts something down in his book  - sometimes something most gamers have been doing for years - and all of a sudden there is a shit storm of controversy .

Sometimes I let it roll, sometimes I do not. For me it's a pacing issue :shrug:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jhkimRepetitive rolls are, in my opinion, just plain stupid.  They eat up time when you could just fold the difficulty into a single roll.  And yet time and time again, I see both real GMs and published rules specifically call for repetitive rolls.  Often there will be a section specifically encouraging repetitive rolls, saying that if you want to make a task more "dramatic" (or somesuch) you should force the player to roll a bunch of times and collect up successes.  

For example, the rules in D&D say that you roll a Climb check for every move action.  So climbing up a wall is a roll every 15', and if people want to climb up a 90-foot cliff, they have to make six rolls.  The rules tell you when and how often to roll.  You might tell me that good GMs don't do this -- but then the rules should say that.  

The Burning Wheel rules say something different.  They say you should only roll one Climb check regardless of how tall the wall/cliff/whatever is.  If it's taller, then that should add to the difficulty of the roll and the time to complete it rather than making people roll over and over again to see if they fail.  Now, there might be better ways of phrasing that rule or of eliminating repetitive rolls -- but that's an extra improvement.

As you so rightly state in this text - this is your opinion. Is it not possible that others feel that in order to better serve emulation that rolling for every 15' makes the most sense? And to others, emulation might very well be served by the method you suggest - rolling once and letting height/distance follow accordingly?

You're arguing taste and, quite frankly, to tell someone they are "just plain stupid," even if it is prefaced by it being your opinion, is a bit beneath you.

Quote from: David RJesus, is this what's gotten' some folks knickers in a twist. Man, I've been doing stuff like this for years. It never ceases to amaze me, a designer puts something down in his book  - sometimes something most gamers have been doing for years - and all of a sudden there is a shit storm of controversy .

Sometimes I let it roll, sometimes I do not. For me it's a pacing issue :shrug:

Regards,
David R

Bingo, David. Same with Bangs. I've been doing  them for decades - I just didn't have a fancy name for them. Not that I invented them - I got the idea from the guy who taught me how to run D&D, some 29 years ago. He must've gotten them from someplace. He never claimed to invent them either.

-clash

Quote from: James J SkachAs you so rightly state in this text - this is your opinion. Is it not possible that others feel that in order to better serve emulation that rolling for every 15' makes the most sense? And to others, emulation might very well be served by the method you suggest - rolling once and letting height/distance follow accordingly?

You're arguing taste and, quite frankly, to tell someone they are "just plain stupid," even if it is prefaced by it being your opinion, is a bit beneath you.

Hm.  Do you actually prefer a long series of climbing rolls, or is this hypothetical?  

My words may be overly harsh, but it's one of the points of design which I feel strongly about.  There are some things which I've seen work reasonably well for others even if I don't like them.  However, there are several things which I am not convinced there is any worth to.  

For example, the one I dislike most is probably linear pre-plotting -- i.e. GM advice which suggests the GM prepare a sequence of scenes to shuttle players from one to the next.  There are several games which explicitly suggest this (and a few people who advocate it).  However, as far as I can tell, players always at best tolerate it by having the GM be really entertaining otherwise.  

However, repetitive rolls are high on the list after that if not second.  (I guess it depends whether I consider omniscient NPCs as being in the same category of problems.)

Quote from: jhkimHm.  Do you actually prefer a long series of climbing rolls, or is this hypothetical?

Depends on the situation. if I thought about it, I guess I prefer whatever best serves the set of issues at hand - including emulation, pacing, etc.

I mostly play D&D, though I'm starting to look at some newer systems. I can tell you that when I read systems, what floats my boat first is how well it instantiates emulation without getting too crunchy.

Does that help?

Or were you really attempting to say that I can't talk because I'm somehow unqualified to speak about the subject due to lack of playing this or that way?

Cause that just smacks of elitism - which, from my experiences reading your stuff, is not your style.

John, I don't think comparing Let it Ride to a D&D rule that says to roll every 15' is quite getting at the difference. The D&D rule may be poorly engineered, but it's basically the same as letting a single roll "ride" all the way up the wall--in that there's a fixed probability of success you can calculate at the beginning of the climb. (I.e., chance of one success raised to the nth power.)

If Let it Ride means anything then I have to think it's more along the lines of preventing the use of repeated die rolls to filter out results that somebody doesn't want, or to guarantee results somebody does want.

The problem here is that some people are so used to the idea of the GM steering a game in this fashion through iterative/extended resolution, that they don't trust games without explicit stakes and scene-at-a-time resolution.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe problem here is that some people are so used to the idea of the GM steering a game in this fashion through iterative/extended resolution, that they don't trust games without explicit stakes and scene-at-a-time resolution.

It always seems to come down to issues of trust.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt always seems to come down to issues of trust.

-clash

Yeah, exactly. I'm not knocking any games here ( and I don't mean to derail this thread). But I've always found that if rules are needed to encourage/sustain trust, something's obviously rotten in Denmark...if you get my meaning..

Regards,
David R

Yeah, although I should say that the "let it ride"/scene-at-a-time approach has benefits in itself, simply by streamlining things and allowing the scale of action to focus on what the group finds interesting. Unless one is very careful about the use of modifiers to adjust difficulty based on the scale of action attempted, I don't think it's as realistic as, say, drawing up a map of the enemy camp and establishing rules for each guard's "detection range" or whatever, but it's a heck of a lot simpler when the group isn't really interested in that kind of tactical detail.

When should you roll? When it makes sense to.

Bob the Sneaky Guy decides to go talk with the goblin chief. His player decides Bob is going to walk straight into the goblin camp and up to the chief's tent. This is a bluff, and it works (a good roll). The goblins who see him walking into camp assume he's part of their group (humans'll work for anybody), and go about their business.

Now, could there be anybody who might be suspicious of Bob? Of course. One of the chieftan's henchmen is a suspicious sort and decides to investigate this new guy.

Grognak the Henchman grills Bob the Sneaky Guy, and the two decide that the goblin chieftan really does need to hear what Bob has to say. Basically Bob is convincing (Bob's player rolls well), but Grognak doesn't fall for it (the GM rolls well too), but decides that what Bob has to say needs to be heard by the boss.

My point is, when it comes to things like this the rolls should influence actions, not dictate them. Consider the personalities involved, the current and overall situation, and how the respective parties have interacted before.

Quote from: Consonant DudeNo, no. I'm saying I understand (and share) Pundit's lack of enthusiasm for the rule. I think it's a decent rule ....
I personally don't need it nor am I impressed by it because we handle dice rolling just fine in my groups but I certainly don't object to the presence of this "rule" in a RPG.

Then you don't actually share Pundit's level of lack of enthusiam. He decries it as a "stupid" rule.

Quotebut am basically disappointed that some gamers need such obvious stuff to be pointed out to them.

*shrug* People talk about aiming games for kids. About aiming towards bringing people into gaming. Well where are they going to learn? Sometimes via a mentor. But, with kids especially, they are learning by reading the rules. What comes first, learning how to play or changing the rules around?

I'm disappointed that so few game designers craft and polish their rules to fit naturally with fundamentally sound play, and instead leave it up to their customers to finish the job by rewriting rules. Copping some "well they are just guildlines, don't do as I say" just doesn't pass mustard for me. I personally feel that propagating that sort of attitude, born from necessity during past development of RPGs, that it's laudable to not polish rules just encourages sloppy products.

EDIT: I will add though that D&D 3e does get a bit of a pass from me in this particular aspect since they have Take 10/Take 20 that helps some (in a "distant cousin" sort of way), and the game is targeted more towards a dungeon crawl style games. But the game is used/marketed enough for other style senarios that it wouldn't have been out of line to add a bit more polish in this area. Hey, apparently some game used this sort of concept a couple of years before so they wouldn't nessesarily even have to come to the conclusion themselves. Although the people involved in D&D might have not been aware of the exact rules of that game, and trying to fit it in might not have been smooth. In a lot of ways 3.5/3e is pretty damn polished, it certainly was for it's time.

Quote from: WilNo I'm saying....

Sorry, that was a confusing way for me to lay that post out. The part you quoted was directed to Consonant Dude, not you. :o

Quote from: blakkieSorry, that was a confusing way for me to lay that post out. The part you quoted was directed to Consonant Dude, not you. :o

Ah, that makes sense...still, it made me think about my position a bit more critically (not that it changed anything...it's still basically the same position).

One of the things that I was thinking - how much space out of the rulebook is devoted to this rule? Now, I already have a good inkling that The Burning Wheel is not likely to be a game that rules can be excised from easily, but how integrated is it into the rest of the system? The reason I ask is because if it's just like a paragraph or something, and it's easily ignored, who gives a shit if the rule is there or not? Especially if there are much more awesome parts to the game? I don't really give a crap about any editorial slant or agenda the game author might have as long as the game is good.

QuoteOne of the things that I was thinking - how much space out of the rulebook is devoted to this rule?

The rule proper is 3 sentences over 4 lines. The whole section for Let It Ride runs a little over one page including a couple examples and a little bit of artwork along the margin of a fisherman casting a net. But the book uses that smaller 8" x 5 1/2" format with generous margins and layout spacing so that isn't really as much text as it initially sounds like.

QuoteNow, I already have a good inkling that The Burning Wheel is not likely to be a game that rules can be excised from easily, but how integrated is it into the rest of the system?

Actually the game is built fairly modularly at the sub-system level. So things like Duel of Wits, melee combat, the different kinds of magic, and such can be pulled out (or not even put in) fairly readily. In fact the author recommends that you learn the game piecemeal while playing by starting with the basic dicing backbone and adding in the detailed sub-systems as you feel comfortable learning them. Which is good because, even though it moves smoothly in play, it is on the crunchy end of the game system spectrum.

For a lot of the detailed sub-system that you don't use, either generally or in a specific instance for pacing, you simply use an opposing roll test. For example if you don't want to bother dealing with the details of melee combat the opponents just roll their skills against each other once to see who wins, who conceeds, and what the damage done is. A second roll is made if the winner wants to force the issue and have someone die (but the loser of the second roll dies, no matter who it is).

However in the case of Let It Ride I think there are a number of reasons it would be a very, very bad idea to try hack it out:
1) That backbone of testing abilities was based heavily around Let It Ride.
2) Removing it would really screw with the capability of changing the scale used for distance and time and adapting to the table's desired priorities, which is a very strong point of the system (not just in this aspect, but it's a theme throughout the rules).
3) The advancement system I mentioned where your rolls are how you advance your stats/skills, so you can end up skewing advancement to a lot faster rate unless you add in a rule that basically reenacts the Let It Ride but only for detemining the frequency of rolls that count towards advancement.
4) It already has a lot of flexibility inherent in it, so it's hard to play counter to it without being an actively spiteful dick about it, or just coming off as a crappy GM/player.
5) It is a really good rule that works, and the alternative generally speaking full on sucks. ;)

Based on reading and limited experience, I think you can be pretty flexible about application of the rule in practice. But it's still probably a good idea in BW to try to think in terms of "big chunks" of resolution, and using resolution to completely address the outcome of "important events" (instead of breaking them down into atomic steps which aren't very important/interesting in themselves)--except for the areas where there's a subsystem offering more detailed resolution like Duel of Wits, Range & Cover, and Fight!

At least that's my initial plan on how to run the game if I do.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's still original if whoever wrote BW had never heard of MS. :)

Last I checked, that's not what the word meant. Original means "first" ;)

Quote from: Elliot WilenBased on reading and limited experience, I think you can be pretty flexible about application of the rule in practice. But it's still probably a good idea in BW to try to think in terms of "big chunks" of resolution, and using resolution to completely address the outcome of "important events" (instead of breaking them down into atomic steps which aren't very important/interesting in themselves)--except for the areas where there's a subsystem offering more detailed resolution like Duel of Wits, Range & Cover, and Fight!

I like how you included "interesting" there because what is important is what is interesting.  Sure if you are going to build a campfire having wood or some other fuel supply is "important", an absolute requirement in fact. But is it interesting testing the character's stats to see if they have that supply of wood or can obtain it, or do you just say "yeah, you've got wood" and get to the parts that the table finds interesting? Whatever that is.

That's where the BITs come in to help out. They are the guide, which the GM must explicitly approve and typically the players build together, for what the players would enjoy seeing their characters tested on. Plus there is good old fashion talking and listening.

So maybe the wood is the interesting part, indirectly. It's been raining for days and the only place you can find suitably dry wood within leagues is that bear cave and you've sworn not to hurt or even disturb the sacred furry brothers, or you are some sort of D&D druid type that thinks that he's one with nature. Well time to put that Belief to the test by putting a grumpy bear and the stipulation to keep the encounter non-intrusive and non-leathal between the character and the wood.  EDIT2: Oh, and no need to have the PC roll to see if they know this.  Because they are masters of the woods, and they should figure it out shortly? Well maybe somewhat, but mostly because what happens if you have them roll and the PC fails that roll? An opportunity for coolness blows by you is what. Unless of course the idea hadn't occured to you first but instead came about because the player activated the rules and called for a Forest-Wise or Survival-Wise roll to locate some wood....which makes them a cool player that is using the rules for their ultimate purpose, to make things happen!

EDIT: Oh, and scaling above DoW or Fight! or R&C if the brievity of an Opposed Test is the right fit at the right time is more than acceptable, it's the right call.

Quote from: jdrakehLast I checked, that's not what the word meant. Original means "first" ;)

Well I heard that "3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else" can be found under "original" in some dictionary somewhere. Sure it's way down the list at #3, but that is above "5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time".  Where did I hear about all this? Why in this great thread debating "the meaning of original" that you can find, over here. (http://www.practical-pet-care.com/argument_forum.php) You really should check it out. Make sure to say "Hi!" to Spike for me. :cool:

Quote from: blakkieWell I heard that "3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else" can be found under "original" in some dictionary somewhere.

Hmm. . . well, at any rate, my primary concern is that the Burning Wheel has been widely (and erroneously) credited with pioneering the idea. Which it didn't. Even if Luke wasn't aware of Maelstrom beforehand. Fact is, somebody else set the precedent and denying them the credit due is crap.

Quote from: jdrakehHmm. . . well, at any rate, my primary concern is that the Burning Wheel has been widely (and erroneously) credited with pioneering the idea. Which it didn't. Even if Luke wasn't aware of Maelstrom beforehand. Fact is, somebody else set the precedent and denying them the credit due is crap.

Well it certainly wasn't me. I never even considered whether it was the first or not, because it didn't/doesn't much matter to me. It just seemed like a really good idea that I was glad was there. Probably because it was an idea that wasn't particularly new to me I guess I had assumed it was pretty common defacto house rule. I'm actually kind of sad that noone has come up with more than one reference to something like it in an RPG (other than I guess in some ways Amber, but it's easy to not reroll when you never roll to start with ;) ).

The Circles sub-system, and in particular the Emnity Clause? Those I have on occation wondered if any RPG had something approaching that before. Probably because that's not something that had really occured to me before to have as a rule, certainly not to the scope that BWR has, but I think the rule is a real gem. EDIT: Not that it really matters to me that much whether or not it was "first". The practical aspect of whether or not it works would be the important part, the triva factor of the other would be secondary at best. Maybe as a pointer to something that i'd like to check out is about the only draw I can see.

Quote from: James J Skach

Quote from: jhkimHm. Do you actually prefer a long series of climbing rolls, or is this hypothetical?

Depends on the situation. if I thought about it, I guess I prefer whatever best serves the set of issues at hand - including emulation, pacing, etc.

I mostly play D&D, though I'm starting to look at some newer systems. I can tell you that when I read systems, what floats my boat first is how well it instantiates emulation without getting too crunchy.

Does that help?

Or were you really attempting to say that I can't talk because I'm somehow unqualified to speak about the subject due to lack of playing this or that way?

Cause that just smacks of elitism - which, from my experiences reading your stuff, is not your style.

Um?  As far as the last question, no.  I was asking if you really liked repetitive rolls, or if you're just arguing "Well, I don't like repetitive rolling, but someone somewhere must like repetitive rolling, therefore you shouldn't badmouth it."  I'm sure you're perfectly qualified to judge whether you like repetitive rolling or not.  

And no, I don't find that the first a helpful answer.  You're putting "best" as a choice, but that's what everyone wants -- they just have different ideas about what is best.  I mean, is anyone really going to say "No, I'd like what isn't best"?  

Can you suggest some examples of when you think it's best to make a bunch of repetitive rolls?  

Quote from: Elliot WilenJohn, I don't think comparing Let it Ride to a D&D rule that says to roll every 15' is quite getting at the difference. The D&D rule may be poorly engineered, but it's basically the same as letting a single roll "ride" all the way up the wall--in that there's a fixed probability of success you can calculate at the beginning of the climb. (I.e., chance of one success raised to the nth power.)

Well, comparing Let It Ride to D&D climbing is getting at the difference between Let It Ride and other systems -- which I thought was the topic.  And no, I don't think that sitting there rolling over and over again is the same as rolling once, because, well, you have to sit there rolling over and over.  That's the difference which I'm talking about.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf Let it Ride means anything then I have to think it's more along the lines of preventing the use of repeated die rolls to filter out results that somebody doesn't want, or to guarantee results somebody does want.

The problem here is that some people are so used to the idea of the GM steering a game in this fashion through iterative/extended resolution, that they don't trust games without explicit stakes and scene-at-a-time resolution.

I don't see that.  The Let It Ride rule means that you don't make repetitive rolls on the same skill.  That's what it is as a mechanic.  That has meaning.  You might have a problem with the attitude which someone takes when they talk about the rule, or who they trust or whatever -- but that's different from the rule itself.

Quote from: jdrakehLast I checked, that's not what the word meant. Original means "first" ;)

Don't go trying to quote definitions to... dum-duh-duh-dummmmmm Dictionary Man!

Quote from: Dictionary.com3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/original

edit: Well poopie. I go and post a definition only to find that it's already been done. Ah well. I guess if blakkie wants I'll have to let him into the Legion of Super English Speakers.

Quote from: blakkieWell I heard that "3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else" can be found under "original" in some dictionary somewhere. Sure it's way down the list at #3, but that is above "5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time".  Where did I hear about all this? Why in this great thread debating "the meaning of original" that you can find, over here. (http://www.practical-pet-care.com/argument_forum.php) You really should check it out. Make sure to say "Hi!" to Spike for me. :cool:

Eh. Don't see how that is supposed to matter to me, Waldo.  I wasn't debating the meaning of original.   Let it ride isn't original because it is no more than a codification of how many gamers already play.  Therefore, by your OWN definition it did not arise or proceed independently of anything else.

Fuck you and your pet care shit.  I ate fluffy for dinner. :rolleyes:

You know this is retarded. If anyone claimed that the mechanic was "original" they're full of shit and if anyone claimed that the mechanic was invented 3000 years ago they're full of shit. It's there, in The Burning Wheel, and that is what is being discussed. Suffice it to say that the current incarnation of the rule in the Burning Wheel is most likely what gamers on this site are familiar with and anyone else has more important things to do than argue about rules anyway and leave it at that.

Quote from: SpikeEh. Don't see how that is supposed to matter to me, Waldo.

It wasn't for you, I had hoped against hope that you had already fucked off to find someone to talk to that cared about "original". :rolleyes:

Quote from: blakkieIt wasn't for you, I had hoped against hope that you had already fucked off to find someone to talk to that cared about "original". :rolleyes:

Well, don't invoke me by name then. :rolleyes:  Especially since I stated quite clearly that I DIDN'T care.  I'm not the one bandying around dictionary references.  Hmm... I wonder who is?

Quote from: SpikeWell, don't invoke me by name then. :rolleyes:

It was a reference to this. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=60505&postcount=29)

QuoteEspecially since I stated quite clearly that I DIDN'T care.

Yeah, crystal clear! (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=60466&postcount=23)

Now shuffle along. :P

And now you're having an argument about who cares least about the previous argument nobody cared about.  Well played, gentlemen,  well played. :D

Quote from: TonyLBAnd now you're having an argument about who cares least about the previous argument nobody cared about.  Well played, gentlemen,  well played. :D

It's all about keeping the thread at the top of the board! :D

Quote from: blakkieIt's all about keeping the thread at the top of the board! :D

LOL!

Quote from: blakkieIt was a reference to this. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=60505&postcount=29)

Yeah, crystal clear! (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=60466&postcount=23)

Now shuffle along. :P

Wrong quote, Waldo. Look to post 56.   I'm sorry if your reading comprehension is limited to Webster references.

Of course... as I pointed out earlier, if you wanted me absent from the discussion, you should have avoided invoking me.  Tempt not the angry yellow rodent... :cool:

Quote from: SpikeOf course... as I pointed out earlier, if you wanted me absent from the discussion, you should have avoided invoking me.  Tempt not the angry yellow rodent... :cool:

Nobody who says "shuffle along" really wants the person they're addressing to leave. It's a derisive statement intended to garner at least one more post out of someone. Well done, blakkie.

Quote from: James McMurrayNobody who says "shuffle along" really wants the person they're addressing to leave. It's a derisive statement intended to garner at least one more post out of someone. Well done, blakkie.

Well of course it is a desperate cry for attention.  Why do you think I responded? Am I so cruel as to leave him starving in the thread, desperately craving the response he needs, wanting to reply with some cutting remark he has undoubtedly been honing while he awaits his prey?

Of course not. After all, you have to teach them how to hunt for themselves at some point... otherwise you just have to do it all for them.

Quote from: James McMurrayNobody who says "shuffle along" really wants the person they're addressing to leave. It's a derisive statement intended to garner at least one more post out of someone. Well done, blakkie.

Thanks! The topic has been pretty much mined out I think.  But my little pet rat Spike is being really, really helpful.  Not only does he keep posting, but he is posting really silly things like. "Oh I just don't care about 'original'. And you should have known that I was going to make it crystal clear in a post before I posted, a post which features an arguement about how Let It Ride isn't 'original'."

With 'enemies' like that who needs friends? :D

Quote from: WilYou know this is retarded. If anyone claimed that the mechanic was "original" they're full of shit and if anyone claimed that the mechanic was invented 3000 years ago they're full of shit. It's there, in The Burning Wheel, and that is what is being discussed. Suffice it to say that the current incarnation of the rule in the Burning Wheel is most likely what gamers on this site are familiar with and anyone else has more important things to do than argue about rules anyway and leave it at that.

I found it useful and have applied it, the fact it is strikingly obvious is what made it so useful to me in fact, obvious as it is it had somehow escaped me and I was sometimes making people keep rolling unnecessarily.

Me, I don't care if it's original, ancient, whatever.  I care about whether it's useful to me, and this was.

Why it's promoting so much argument I have no idea, it's basically a piece of GM advice and as such one can take it or leave it as one sees fit.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI can understand Pundit's point of view. From my point of view, the rule is stupid too. I get to decide when to roll.

However, I do think it could be a service to certain anal-retentive gamers who need it spelled out that they don't have to roll all the time. I suppose a lot of folks here will not find this concept novel. Surprisingly, I think some gamers need the advice.

It's like all those threads of malajusted gamers on RPG.net asking what to do about the stinky group member who empties the fridge every session. Any normal person knows what to do (ditch his ass). Some gamers just aren't normal persons and need the obvious to be pointed out.

I'm also reminded of those "magic isn't real" disclaimers in some game books. It's scary but I think they might actually be useful sometimes. I prefer not to know when, though. :D

The thing is, it does no harm sometimes to be reminded of the obvious.  I'm generally not an A-R GM but I found this a useful little bit of advice, obvious sure but it was a trap I had occasionally fallen into.

It's getting blown out of proportion here.  I had a chat with a guy a while back in which we were discussing the same book, and each of us had found one bit of it really obvious and the other bit really useful.  The irony was, we had found different sections obvious and useful as it turned out.

Quote from: blakkieThanks! The topic has been pretty much mined out I think.  But my little pet rat Spike is being really, really helpful.  Not only does he keep posting, but he is posting really silly things like. "Oh I just don't care about 'original'. And you should have known that I was going to make it crystal clear in a post before I posted, a post which features an arguement about how Let It Ride isn't 'original'."

With 'enemies' like that who needs friends? :D

Needs more work, waldo. If that was the best you could manage when I left you plenty of openings you need far more help than I can give you.

Quote from: jhkimAnd no, I don't find that the first a helpful answer.  You're putting "best" as a choice, but that's what everyone wants -- they just have different ideas about what is best.  I mean, is anyone really going to say "No, I'd like what isn't best"?  

Can you suggest some examples of when you think it's best to make a bunch of repetitive rolls?

Sure.

There are times when I play that I want to really help emulate the setting - including the world, it's "workings" and "physics" and so forth, according to the level of "crunch" of the rules. (EDIT: most times I lean towards a level of emulation that, to me, gets swamped in broader scale resolution approaches) So let's assume I'm playing D&D.  In order to emulate typical "physics" according to the D&D Rules, one should role every 15'. So, my foremost goal is emulation at the level provided by the D&D rules (as a means to achieve my fun), I enjoy rolling every 15'. I've been in situations where this did (contrary to someone's statement here that to say so is bullshit) increase tension - will I make the entire climb?  How far will I be when I fall and will that damage (determined by height) put me down for the count? If I make it, what awaits me?

(EDIT 2: Is D&D the best for emulation? I doubt it.  My god, some of the Gulliver rules for earlier GURPS and stuff makes my head spin with the level of crunch. But it's a level I like.)

So, yeah. Does that help?

QuoteSo, my foremost goal is emulation at the level provided by the D&D rules (as a means to achieve my fun), I enjoy rolling every 15'.

If the other people at the table feel this way (and aren't face palming like I likely would ;) ) great, rock on! By definition the climbing of each increment is interesting to you. As mentioned before I think this works best in situation where you can keep a tight reign on the physical scale, so dungeons and like areas are a natural fit for it.

QuoteI've been in situations where this did (contrary to someone's statement here that to say so is bullshit) increase tension - will I make the entire climb?

Sure it can and does happen. Unfortunately from what I've seen the hit-miss ratio and time spent on it tends to be a really poor investment.  It also tends to get in the way of keeping the attention/dice rolling hoping around the table.

That's probably the biggest difference I've noticed when switching to BW. Side quests become far more feasible and tolerable to the others around the table.  Coupling it with the idea of a scene cut and "say yes, or roll dice" (with liberal and prudent use of "yes") you can have entire journeys, meetings, battles, intrigue and such wrapped up in minutes with so much action [EDIT: and tense dice rolls!] packed in and so little dead time that they feel even less like an interuption. Plus you are using the characters skills just like you would when using a smaller scale time/distance so it tends to maintain that feeling that your character really did do these things.

Quote from: James J SkachSo let's assume I'm playing D&D.  In order to emulate typical "physics" according to the D&D Rules, one should role every 15'. So, my foremost goal is emulation at the level provided by the D&D rules (as a means to achieve my fun), I enjoy rolling every 15'. I've been in situations where this did (contrary to someone's statement here that to say so is bullshit) increase tension - will I make the entire climb?  How far will I be when I fall and will that damage (determined by height) put me down for the count? If I make it, what awaits me?

OK, fair enough.  It is indeed an opinion differs thing.  I am somewhat surprised, though there people who argue for linear pre-plotting as well.  

Having played D&D as well as equivalent climbing mechanics in other games, I always found them dull as dishwater.  From my point of view, I'd much prefer to get those answers in a single roll or two.  If you get the overall chance of a fall, the height of the fall occurs at a random point on a climb.  In principle, this would be different if there were something happening every round -- like climbing during a fight.  However, I've experienced some of that as well and I still found the rolling dull and annoying.

Mr. Kim and Blakkie,

First, thanks for understanding.  I'm thrilled we could come to some common understanding, and with two of the more vociferous voices here - wow.

But...I hate to do it...well..I'll put it out there and let you decide if you want ot react or just consider me an asshole and move on.

You see, it's great that we've come to agree on my assertion that the granularity of resolution is a matter of taste. But...

I find it interesting that I, IMHO, had to essentially prove to you that I could actually enjoy this approach.

I find it interesting that after you agree (hey, I convinced you someone could actually enjoy rolling for every 15' of climbing - and add tension!), you go on to tell me how I'm rare for doing so (the hit-miss ratio is bad) and how I'm messing with flow (it keeps the attention from hoping around the table).

I find it interesting that after you agree, you call my tastes as dull as dishwater.

I find it interesting that after you agree it's a matter of taste you both go on to extoll the virtues of your approach - essentially explaining again why it's better.

Now please, before you fire up your fingers and start with the flaming retort, please understand I'm not upset and I'm not calling into question your intentions.  I don't think you intended to come across this way. But it always strikes me that sometimes people don't even realize how condescending they can appear, even when trying to be polite. I personally think this is why hackles get raised.  And then when the person is called on it - they're baffled as they certainly didn't intentionally mean it that way.

OK, so if you're still reading, my question is:
Since we've agreed that resolution granularity is a matter of taste - how does that impact design? Is it best to choose one and assume that each game will have that one point on the scale? Would we be better served in trying to find a way that allows a single set of rules to slide the scale as needed/desired by the group? Because after all, we're trying to improve gaming and game design, right? Not convince everyone ours is the One True Way...

Probably for another thread...

Quote from: James J SkachI find it interesting that I, IMHO, had to essentially prove to you that I could actually enjoy this approach.

You've proved nothing other than you are a wrongbad thinker! LOL, ok ok seriously though. I guess you didn't pick up during the talk about "traditional dungeons" where I didn't need any such proof of the existance of such preference.

QuoteI find it interesting that after you agree (hey, I convinced you someone could actually enjoy rolling for every 15' of climbing - and add tension!), you go on to tell me how I'm rare for doing so (the hit-miss ratio is bad) and how I'm messing with flow (it keeps the attention from hoping around the table).

First with hit/miss I'm refering to specific instances of the rolling, not people.  But I will say that what I've heard hear, and from my personal observations over the years, that you are relatively rare if you consistantly derive enjoyment from always following playing at the 15' rule. Note rare but not entirely alone, hey somebody out there plays Advanced Squad Leader too and that makes D&D look like a couple of grade schoolers playing cops & robbers. Could it be further exaggerated by the selection of senarios that you typically play? Maybe, or whatever.  I'll tolerate playing that way myself to a point, but mostly it is the senario's dimensions being fitted to the rules that makes it palatible. *shrug*

QuoteI find it interesting that after you agree, you call my tastes as dull as dishwater.

Did I actually say dull as dishwater? I'd rather word it as playing the game to your desired tastes, at least without heavily tweaking the senario, would have me either just getting up, walking away, and not coming back or, if I'm feeling particularly melodramatic, repeatedly hammering my head on the table. :D

QuoteI find it interesting that after you agree it's a matter of taste you both go on to extoll the virtues of your approach - essentially explaining again why it's better.

I think you're just a tad oversensitive here.

EDIT: Oops, missed this part.

QuoteWould we be better served in trying to find a way that allows a single set of rules to slide the scale as needed/desired by the group?

Er, but that IS at the core of Let It Ride. I'll add though that even though it is flexible enough to you could theoretically switch to a 15' interval or something all the time, there are really good reasons why the results would be poor in BW. That list of 5 items I posted a ways back...taking out #5 for you I guess.  Likely much better to go with different game engines for different uses. I will say though that the one person that I know personally that was the most tolerating and/or enjoyed the D&D RAW really, really appreciates the results of Let It Ride in action.

Quote from: jhkimWell, comparing Let It Ride to D&D climbing is getting at the difference between Let It Ride and other systems -- which I thought was the topic.  And no, I don't think that sitting there rolling over and over again is the same as rolling once, because, well, you have to sit there rolling over and over.  That's the difference which I'm talking about.  
[...]The Let It Ride rule means that you don't make repetitive rolls on the same skill.  That's what it is as a mechanic.  That has meaning.  You might have a problem with the attitude which someone takes when they talk about the rule, or who they trust or whatever -- but that's different from the rule itself.

John, I really think you're missing the point of Let It Ride. Both Let It Ride and a climbing mechanic like D&D provide a well-defined algorithm for determining success. The number of dice rolled isn't the purpose of the rule as stated by the author and fans of the rule. I believe it's spelled out in the book, though I don't have the text in front of me: the purpose is to prevent the GM or player from "asking for do-overs" in order to force the result they want. I had a recent, though fairly benign experience of this in the RQ game I played at the last Endgame mini-con. We needed to wriggle ourselves into the opening of a freshwater spring, against the flow of the current, so the GM had us roll against a stat. Well, I failed. So the GM had me roll again. I failed again. Eventually, the GM just said I made it into the tunnel after struggling for a while; the situation wasn't so tightly time-urgent that we couldn't assume I'd eventually succeed on a roll. (The game improved immensely from there.) A far less satisfying example is the hypothetical I posted elsewhere:

Quote from: hypothetical situationPlayer: I want to get into the treasury using my Sneak skill.
GM: Okay, roll.
Player: (Rolls) Crap, I didn't make it.
GM: [Doesn't want the player to fail.] As you climb along the roof, a loose tile falls and clatters on the ground. A guard is sitting nearby and begins to look up from his post.
Player: I hit the deck and make a sound like a cat meowing. Then I throw a stone to make it sound like the cat is bounding off.
GM: Roll Hide augmented by Mimicry.
Player: (Rolls) Success!
GM: Okay, you're in.

or furthermore

Quote from: hypothetical, continuedThe GM thinks, if the Hide/Mimicry roll fails, I won't have the guard raise the alarm immediately. He'll climb up a ladder, so the PC can get a surprise attack with a thrown dagger.

Essentially, a GM playing improvisationally and who has a specific outcome in mind is able to manipulate the use of resolutions and interpretation to produce that particular outcome. Now, where I disagree with the "Conflict Resolution" fanatics is that they say, if you don't limit the ability of the GM to improvisationally call for additional rolls, then the GM is necessarily going to determine the outcome of the situation via hidden "GM Fiat". I say no: it depends on how the GM approaches his/her responsibility. However, if you do use "Let It Ride", it does guarantee that the success/failure of the player's intent is going to be settled upfront, transparently, with no room for manipulation once the dice hit the table and Artha if any are spent.

If you still don't see how Let it Ride is being touted not merely as method of streamlining resolution but of ensuring the mechanics are "actually used to resolve things", then take a look at this story-games thread (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1199&page=1) and search on the page for "let it ride".

Quote from: James J SkachBut it always strikes me that sometimes people don't even realize how condescending they can appear, even when trying to be polite. I personally think this is why hackles get raised.  And then when the person is called on it - they're baffled as they certainly didn't intentionally mean it that way.

Well, on this board my standards for politeness are considerably looser than they are in some other venues.  It's not that I'm unaware that statements can raise hackles -- just that around here (given founder and host RPGPundit) I expect hackles to be raised regardless.  

Quote from: James J SkachOK, so if you're still reading, my question is:
Since we've agreed that resolution granularity is a matter of taste - how does that impact design? Is it best to choose one and assume that each game will have that one point on the scale? Would we be better served in trying to find a way that allows a single set of rules to slide the scale as needed/desired by the group? Because after all, we're trying to improve gaming and game design, right? Not convince everyone ours is the One True Way...

Mostly, I think that we should have different game designs.  Trying to make one game which will please everyone's tastes is liable to just be mediocre to anyone.