[Horror] Why Roll vs Corruption So Early?

[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.

[Varyon]

My inclination would be that a character who has less than 25 Corruption still loses a character point (gaining a Quirk or whatever) upon failing the Will roll. However, keep track of how much Corruption is actually invested in that [-1] - each additional point of Corruption you gain adds to the total for that trait, until it's at the full 25, after which point the character starts accumulated unassigned Corruption normally.

[Aldric]

I don't have that book, so I can't say. Seems rather pointless if that's how it works, unless there are other effects of rolling, like reducing or increasing corruption based on margin, or for crits.

[lvalero]

I have exactly the same wondering as the OP. Why roll dice when it is (apparently) pointless?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Klark

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.

Yeah it seems odd, if we're going to bother with rolling when someone has 24 or fewer corruption all I can think is converting it to decimals, ie 1 point of corruption becomes -0.04 character points.

Unless perhaps there is a "round down" policy on whatever decimal result you get, so even 0.04 negative CP rounds "down" to a full -1 quirk?

Yet using the term "full" seems to speak against that interpretation.

H147's "bought at character creation" guidelines also only counts as -1 cp per 10 corruption too, a different ratio.

Seems like it'd be simpler to gain -1 cp per 10 corruption and maybe if you have fractions of 10 you just track a single decimal place of negative character points?

Of course I don't know any way to design quirks worth less than -1 cp, decile -0.1 to -0.9 quirks could be interesting though. Otherwise I just wouldn't convert the corruption.

As for starting off with 1-9 corruption instead of 10, decile perks would be cool too.

Like maybe 1 dr (crushing only -40% tough skin -40% ablative -80%) could be worth 0.2 cp?

[Rolando]

it is meaningless, but the GM may rule otherwise, maybe in a critical failure something else happen.

It may also make players nervous or there is a way to tie corruption rolls to fright checks or other will rolls.

But as far as rules as written the roll is completely irrelevant, so you may ignore it until later when it isn't.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

Yeah it seems odd, if we're going to bother with rolling when someone has 24 or fewer corruption all I can think is converting it to decimals, ie 1 point of corruption becomes -0.04 character points.

I think Corruption is a lot easier to get rid of than a Disadvantage that you've acquired due to Corruption. So, using your suggestion, that means failing the roll when below 25 Corruption doesn't cause you to gain any new Disadvantages/Quirks (or lose Advantages/Perks), but rather "locks in" whatever Corruption you've already acquired, making it harder to get rid of. That would give the roll a purpose, at least.
(I still like my suggestion, that failure causes you to gain a Quirk, and any Corruption you later gain automatically "fills up" that Quirk until it reaches a full 25... but I'm biased)

[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.