Question on Application of Let It Stand rules

[eruditus]

How would several GMs out there handled this scenario...

group of inexperienced climbers (but fit and agile) attempt to climb a mountain. This face is verticle (no overhangs or anything too funky) with reasonable foot and hand holds. The climb will be going from shelf to shelf for several thousand feet - maybe only just less than a mile up.

[luke]

what's at the top of the mountain? or why are they climbing this face? where does it tie into the story?

if it is simply an obstacle to bypass in order to get to another plot point, then it would be one test. Players could help each other if they so desire.

If the cliff itself is the big obstacle to overcome, then I would call for three tests. players may help each other.

-abzu

[eruditus]

If your helping another do you lose anything in return? Can you help yourself with a FoRK and help someone else too?

[luke]

If your helping another do you lose anything in return? Can you help yourself with a FoRK and help someone else too? Maybe in this regard we're talking about Agility checks to hold on?

i really see no reason to impose such penalties. what's the point? you're testing the character's ability to climb. that's what should be rolled. if they fail, there are going to be serious consequences.

asking for additional tests is saying, "shouldn't the test be harder?" if, as the GM, you think the test should be harder, you should raise the obstacle by one or two. setting the obstacle will determine if the characters need to help each other at all.

-abzu

[eruditus]

If your helping another do you lose anything in return? Can you help yourself with a FoRK and help someone else too?

[Kublai]

If you're helping another do you lose anything in return? Can you help yourself with a FoRK and help someone else too?

The only way to give someone more than one die when helping them is if you have a skill of 7 or higher. Although you can't add fork dice to the helping die, I wonder if forked dice will help to raise the skill to the needed exponent of 7. hmm...

[luke]

[quote=eruditus]If your helping another do you lose anything in return?

no.


Can you help yourself with a FoRK and help someone else too?

yes, but the FoRK doesn't add to your total dice when determining how many dice go over to the character being helped. FoRK dice only help you.

[nebulousmenace]

This probably comes under the "obvious" category, but it shouldn't just be "You fail your Climb roll, take a [*rolls DoF*] Grey 12. " If someone falls they get a Natural Defense roll to save themselves, catching by the proverbial fingertip, and then a Strength test to pull themselves up. Characters with no Climb skill roping themselves to each other seems like a very deadly idea, but I don't know how I'd represent that. . .

[eruditus]

This seems reasonable. The ND seems to make sense (which is where I was going with Agility).

And yes, roping one another together without pitons would be a very bad idea. Represent it? Well, lets see...

Power test just using finger tips and toeholds... Ob 3
Jerk at falling velocity... Ob +1
Each bodies additional weight after first (and I am being generous here)... Ob +1
Get one power helping die for each person still on the wall with you.

Fail and follow

[luke]

what's the point of the climbing test? what is the gm/game trying to accomplish by having the characters test this skill?

climbing is very dangerous, the players should know this before they set out on a climb. they should know the risks inherent in failure.

slipping, then grabbing on by your finger tips and barely saving your life is the complete and whole result of a failed climbing test. period, no other dice need be rolled. perhaps it's a "failed by one" test.

most failed tests aren't going to result in disaster. it is the gm's most basic job to narrate this failure in a manner in keeping with the mood of the game, the skill of the character and feel of the system. A failed climbing test can result in the test taking longer than expected (clinging to the face all night!), the route being completely inaccessible and taking 2 or 3 times the time expected as you find another route and go around. Or it could result in the characters reaching the summit, but at the loss of one or two of their packs or perhaps they were unable to retrieve enough rope to effect a descent.

when the gm informs you that you could get hurt or possibly die climbing this face, and you utterly fail the test (no successes) then you know what's in store for you. Upon failure, the DOF is rolled, and there is no last minute reroll. The Power check is just a reroll reroll to get the result on the dice that you wanted originally. It's a plain old reroll to generate different results than the initial test. If the gm wanted those results in the first place, he should just narrate them as failure (or even success)! In fact, if the gm is just going to call for rerolls until he sees the result he wants, then why roll at all? Just give a cool description of the harrowing climb and get on to what happens next.

this is described somewhat in the failure rules in the BW. i can't find my books at the moment, so i don't have a page #.

[eruditus]

Hmmmm...

I am torn over this. I like the idea of "rolled badly on one type of test then maybe you could save yourself with another." Besides, we just had a huge conversation about the importance of Natural Defenses "keeping one unencumbered and on their feet," it seems appropriate that there be such a "reroll." I agree, one shouldn't go crazy but I can see a definate difference here:

Climbing test to see if you can make headway
No successes/all traitors says you begin to fall
Power test at Ob 3 to see if you can steady yourself and avoid falling
Others connected to you in some way can add a helping die

I always say that rules are for the GM who can't make a decision
This is not the kind of decision many GMs want to just make...
It sort of cheapens the thrill.
You want it to be deadly, and yeah the players know what they are doing is dangerous, but as a GM I want the climb to be genuinely harrowing and difficult, not crazy impossible. I prefer, in such situations, to allow chance to determine their fate to a degree (chance based on their ABILITIES) and for that chance to be in favor of the character - unless they are doing something I think is silly, then I will let the dice do the killin' for me :)

I see your point but I also think there are situations where a bad roll should not dictate the fate of a character yet you cannot remove rolling entirely from the experience.

Players act and react based on many metagaming issues. If they think you just won't kill them, then they become reckless. But you have plot and longevity to think about as a GM.

In short, as a GM, my decision to to have them make a ND roll to survive. I think most people, on this list, or otherwise, would be hard pressed to say that this sort of "reroll" would, in any way hurt the game.

[eruditus]

Note also, that I admit I dislike the DOF. I use it when necessary and when my own decision may get in the way of the players having fun. Otherwise, I am the Die of Fate.