[Horror] Why Roll vs Corruption So Early?

[cupbearer]

Originally Posted by Klark

I'm a bit confused as how to use Corruption as written in Horror, Madness Dossier, and the like. Specifically, I don't see why the rules call for rolling so early into the corruption process.

By my understanding, it works like this: Gary the PC has 12 points of Corruption. At the end of the week, he rolls Will at -1 per full 10 points of Corruption, so Will-1. However, on a failure, he only converts Corruption to negative character points at a rate of -1 per *full* 25 points of Corruption. This means, despite failing, Gary does not gain negative points nor reduce his Corruption total; he doesn't have enough to convert so nothing changes.

As far as I can tell, the Will roll was meaningless. Despite making the roll if you have *any* Corruption, no result--from critical success down to critical failure--has any effect. You might as well wait until the character hits 25 before making any roll, but the rules emphasize that having as little as a single point triggers a roll. What am I missing here?

Also sorry if this question has already been asked, I couldn't find anything in the forums.

It is because the player does not know the total corruption they have. Remember that corruption can be accrued from multiple sources and some sources use a die roll to determine how many points. Therefore the player is in the dark about totals, they eventually have no idea if they are rolling for a reason or not.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by cupbearer

It is because the player does not know the total corruption they have. Remember that corruption can be accrued from multiple sources and some sources use a die roll to determine how many points. Therefore the player is in the dark about totals, they eventually have no idea if they are rolling for a reason or not.

Isn't that kind of like making players do random HT checks because they might be poisoned and not know it?

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Plane

Isn't that kind of like making players do random HT checks because they might be poisoned and not know it?

No, because it's not pointless harassment. It's a Horror game. The players are supposed to be worried, the more so if they've been fooling around with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. Not checking for Corruption tells the player that they're still perfectly safe, which is sort of the exact opposite of creating an atmosphere of impending dread.

In this, rolling when only the GM knows whether the character has less then 25 points of Corruption is somewhat akin to the advice you often see for DF-style GMs to occasionally roll the dice to "check for wandering monsters" or occasionally call for Perception checks when there's no "trap" or sneaky ninja to find. GMs don't just soullessly implement dry mechanics; RPGs are interactive entertainment. All the people at the table should be trying to make a fun experience for all the others.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

No, because it's not pointless harassment. It's a Horror game. The players are supposed to be worried, the more so if they've been fooling around with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. Not checking for Corruption tells the player that they're still perfectly safe, which is sort of the exact opposite of creating an atmosphere of impending dread.

You can keep an atmosphere of dread regarding disease/poison in other kinds of horror too though, not just soul-corrupting stuff. Like in After the End maybe GMs shuold make you roll like as if you were resisting radiation poisoning even if you weren't exposed?

You could have legit mundane reasons too, like maybe you make a HT roll to avoid infection every time a mosquito bites you even if it's not something serious like Malaria and it's a HT+10 roll you would automatically pass.

[Klark]

Originally Posted by cupbearer

It is because the player does not know the total corruption they have. Remember that corruption can be accrued from multiple sources and some sources use a die roll to determine how many points. Therefore the player is in the dark about totals, they eventually have no idea if they are rolling for a reason or not.

The system already has an answer for issues like this though: secret rolls. Perception rolls, resistance rolls vs subtle threats, and similar scenarios where the player or character wouldn't know what's being rolled is handled by the GM doing the rolling behind a screen instead of asking the players to make rolls out of the blue. This is even spelled out on p. B344. I don't understand why they would write Corruption to be the sole exception, the one subsystem that bucks this trend.

[cupbearer]

Originally Posted by Klark

The system already has an answer for issues like this though: secret rolls. Perception rolls, resistance rolls vs subtle threats, and similar scenarios where the player or character wouldn't know what's being rolled is handled by the GM doing the rolling behind a screen instead of asking the players to make rolls out of the blue. This is even spelled out on p. B344. I don't understand why they would write Corruption to be the sole exception, the one subsystem that bucks this trend.

I’m not sure why it is the exception. I am actually using the system in an ongoing campaign, it works ok for us. But I enjoy symmetrical design too.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Klark

The system already has an answer for issues like this though: secret rolls. Perception rolls, resistance rolls vs subtle threats, and similar scenarios where the player or character wouldn't know what's being rolled is handled by the GM doing the rolling behind a screen instead of asking the players to make rolls out of the blue. This is even spelled out on p. B344. I don't understand why they would write Corruption to be the sole exception, the one subsystem that bucks this trend.

Doesn't the GM make this roll? The PC wouldn't even know the modifiers...