I'm currently experimenting with removing any kind of modifiers or bonuses from my game. The Game Master considers the situation, the PC's skills and relevant stats, and chooses a specific target number on the d20. If we maintain similar probabilities of success to 5E D&D, what this reveals is an awful lot of "rolling for failure". Since the early editions of D&D the d20 rolls required to hit after all bonuses are accounted for have been trending down.
Players prefer to succeed more often than fail, that's no surprise. But does that take some of the teeth out of the game? What if instead of telling players their foe's AC is 13, we accounted for their +9 to-hit and just told them "roll a 4". That sounds easier from their perspective, and the tension is immediately resolved as soon as the die stops. It's an instinctual reaction - no pausing for math. But is "roll a 4" exciting? That sounds more like "check for failure" than "roll to succeed".
Our modern system of AC vs. inflated bonuses masks this. It's satisfying to add a bonus and regularly succeed at target numbers well into the teens. But surely it gets tedious rolling for failure? Surely there's less tension on each die roll. Now, success is the norm and surprised disappointment is the cost of occasional failure. Is this really fun?
There's an element of gambler's excitement we're missing if the majority of rolls have a high probability of success. We should no longer "roll to not fail". Maybe that means if you attack a goblin you just roll damage. Maybe it simply dies. But damnit I want that rush excitement - if we're rolling dice it's because there's something at stake. You're going for the kill shot. You've stepped on the deadly trap. You're trying something creative and unlikely, something that your GM cannot allow to just happen unless the dice say "against all odds - it is so!"
Let's save the dice for those moments. Let's not roll dice unless there's less than a 50% chance of success. Let's stop rolling for failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment