Quote:
|
Yes, which is strangely in line with what I've been putting in every single post. The GM can mislead you so you can't count on *failure* to learn information. If you can virtually count on a "you can't tell" being failure, you know to always treat it as a failure.
|
This is why we have critical failure. Or else I suggested a margin of failure before. Reread my earlier posts. And with that you would get: not knowing for sure if you succeeded (you still can roll critical miss or roll beyond margin of failure and get a flipped answer). You would be honestly uncertain some of the time. The thing that bothers you is that this honest uncertainty is too much. But you agree with GM sometimes saying "you can't tell". So difference is you would be ok to leave it at GM's discretion, and agree that you get the milder failure that you so vehemently oppose. You seem to forget about that. And you think that I want it to work like that:
1) 20% clear success 2) 80% you don't know.
Wrong!
What I would like:
1) 20% success 2) 70% you don't know for sure 3) 10% failure
With no way of knowing whether you got 1 or 3. Isn't it more interesting and lifelike? Also it's much less vague. How big the middle part should be is of course up to debate. And it is logically more sound. If IQ or the level of advantage tell you how sensitive you are when you improve those you both get more "sure" results and tilt the success chance in your favor.
I still stand on that you can't reroll this Empathy roll, you have to act on what you got the first time. To make it possible to reroll is muchkiny and I already discussed why it will backfire BAD. MAYBE I would allow 1 reroll with a heavy minus. But rerolling all you want? No. For guideline read up Intuition (I believe you still haven't done that). If you tell me that Empathy is more like an attack than more like Intuition, well I don't know what to say...
Quote:
|
That sounds a lot like saying guns suck because you have range, size, and other environmental penalties. Aiming, bracing, and bonuses would be the "crutch." Those aren't problems, those are how the system creates a bit of balance.
|
Ok, example with guns (attacks). Why it differs. I'll explain.
1.) You have a clear way of improving attack skill with 2 options: buying stat and buying skill levels, These options are pretty balanced. If you say something about reliant enhancement for Sensitive: 5% for +1 to IQ for this ability. You get +10 for only 50% the cost, or for just 3 points. Lol.
2.) Attack is inherently repeatable (B348).
3.) Attack has a clear indicator of success and failure (in almost all cases).
4.) Most of the time you get no penalty for miss except the missed opportunity to hit with an attack (yeah and you spend bullet, but for the love of god don't blow it out of proportion, it's very minor expenditure). It's almost the same as Do Nothing. You're not much worse than that for having missed. Compare to GM BSing you.
5.) Clear and more varied mechanisms for improving the odds of success.