maasenstodt wrote:
wimlach wrote:
If you allow critical hits to be applied to players, you would need to include a roll of 20 being a 'fumble' (the opponent critically hits you), and a roll of 1 being an automatic defence.
Sure. That's no problem at all.
wimlach wrote:
I'm not sure about the psychology of rolling to defend - when a blow gets through, it places more emphasis on the player 'failing' to stop the hit, rather than the opponent 'succeeding'. Although mechanically the same, the latter is easier for a player to shrug off as 'not their fault', as they didn't roll the die. A subtle difference, but one that can impact fun and player morale in the long term.
That's a perspective I hadn't considered. What in your view is the distinction between rolls that a player might fail and shrug off and rolls that a player might fail and not shrug off?
It's purely psychological, and it's effect on players depends on how they view their own influence on the roll of the die.
To put it simply, a negative event originating from a 3rd party is easier to accept than a negative event originating personally. If I roll the dice and I fail to defend, it's interpreted as '
Player Failure', while if the GM rolls the dice and succeeds in the attack (mechanically the same thing), it's interpreted as '
GM/Opponent Success'.
Opponent Success is less personal - it's removed from the player, so absolves them of some responsibility, and also lessens the sting of failure (as it wasn't their 'fault').
People tend to look at the act of rolling the die as the arbiter, rather than probability.
Again, it's a very subtle distinction, but over time it
may have an impact on player morale, depending on the individual.