"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #48 on Apr 19, 2012, 3:50am »
As an alternative that has the advantage of actually needing %pair and being easy to remember I occasionally use something like this (though I don't often actually think of it in these terms, having never written it down before:
A difficult task attempted without training - % chance equal to 1 appropriate ability score
Any other task attempted without training - % chance equal to the sum of 2 appropriate ability score, or 1 appropriate ability score doubled
Any task attempted with training - % chance equal to 40 plus the sum of 2 appropriate ability scores, or 1 appropriate ability score doubled
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Firstly the granularity of stuff. Personally I find combat to be the absolutely least important part of the game,
Well said, but please note that I didn't say anything was more or less important than anything else, only that combat is "at the heart of the game". I believe this to be a reasonable assertion because much of the game system and statistics are expressly for combat. Whether that is true or not, I would still argue that the game doesn't need any system more granular than the existing combat system (I believe I harped on about the virtues of "simplicity" at some length, above).
Secondly, there is no precedent whatsoever set for 1d6 skill rolls either. There *are* precedents for some things being detected, or things not happening or only happening on a d6 roll.
I can't agree with this Norse.
Every example I can find in the 3LBBs of a player proactively doing anything in an exploration/problem solving context is done with 1d6.
The explicit examples include: . Taking enemy by surprise, . Breaking down doors, . Locating secret doors, . Listening for enemy behind doors.
These all look suspiciously "skill-like" to me. E.g.,
. Taking enemy by surprise --> hiding and/or sneaking . Breaking down doors --> cracking locks holding them shut . Locating secret doors --> finding hidden stuff . Listening for enemy behind doors --> listening, alertness
The first port of call throughout much of the 3LBB's was some sort of percentage roll.
I agree that there are a lot of d% rolls in the 3LBBs. In fact, here's a list of all of them:
d% rolls to randomise spell functions . chance of dispel magic spell working M&M p25 . chance of teleport spell working M&M p28 . chance of contact higher plane spell knowing, truthful, insanity M&M p29-30 . chance of sticks to snakes spell producing venemous snakes M&M p33 . chance of a dispel magic spell overcoming nixie charm M&T p15
d% rolls to randomise distribution/occurance of monsters . chance of monsters being in lair M&T p3-4 . chance of leader-types occuring with bandits M&T p5 . chance of leader-types having magic items M&T p5-6 . chance of leaders, other monsters, wagons occuring with orcs M&T p7-8 . frequency of various giant types M&T p8-9 . chance of other monsters occuring with giants M&T p7-8 . frequencey of small, normal, large dragons M&T 11 . chance of dwarf leader-types having magic items M&T p16 . chance of chicks being present in roc nest M&T p17 . chance that castle occupant has lieutenants with PC level U&WA p16
d% rolls to randomise monster behaviour . chance of monsters speaking common M&M p12 . chance of bandits being neutral or chaotic M&T p6 . chance of orcs attacking other orcs on sight M&T p8 They attack Orcs of different tribes on sight unless they are under command of a stronger monster and can score better than 50% on an obedience check (4-6 with a six-sided die for example). . chance of dragon talking, sleeping M&T 11 . chance of dragon magic-using M&T 12 . chance of gargoyle being hostile M&T p14 . chance of a dryad employing a charm spell M&T p16 . chance that rocs will attack those approaching their nest M&T p17 . chance that contact disturbs yellow mold spores M&T p20 . chance magic sword will dominate weilder M&T p30 . chance that food, treasure distracting monsters from pursuit U&WA p12 . chance that castle occupants will sally forth U&WA p15 there is a 50% chance (die 1-3) that they will come out, if one hex away there is a 33-1/3% chance (die 1-2), and if two hexes away there is only a 16-2/3% chance (die 1).
d% rolls to randomise distribution/occurance of treasure . chance of the various valuables being present per treasure type M&T p22 . randomly determined magic items M&T p23-26 . determination of magic sword alignment M&T p27 . determination of magic sword primaty powers, languages M&T p28 . determination of magic sword extraordinary abilities M&T p29 . chance ring of spell storing is clerical, chaotic M&T p34 . distribution of gem, jewellery values M&T p40 . chance of unguarded treasure containing gold, gems, jewellery, magic items U&WA p7 . chance of encountered fighters, clerics, magic-users having magic items U&WA p19
d% rolls to randomise other combat effects . chance of subduing dragon M&T 12-13 . chance of a magic helm being struck in comabt M&T p37 . chance of fire, lightning destroying gems M&T p40 . chance of surprised character dropping something U&WA p12 . chance for mermen to successfully grapple a ship U&WA p33 . chance that ship is damaged by ramming giant crocodile U&WA p35 . chance of hit being critical in aerial combat U&WA p27 . chance of ship being holed below the waterline U&WA p30 . chance of ship grappling another, breaking grappling lines U&WA p31
d% rolls for other miscellaneous stuff . chance of victim seeing his image in mirror of life trapping M&T p38 . chance of galley shipping water in a strong breeze U&WA p29 . chance of repaired hole in ship hull not holding U&WA p30 . chance of man overboard drowning U&WA p33 based on armour worm . chance of "system shock" survival M&M p11 based on constitution score . chance of successfully researching a new spell M&M p34 success proportional to amount of gold spent . chance of successfully evading/pursuing in the wilderness U&WA p20 based on party size (1 to 25+ individuals)
A neat list, but not exactly "skill-like" are they?
You might, perhaps, equate not drowning with a "swimming skill", even though by-the-book that "skill" would equate to the art of not falling into deep water in plate armour.
Similarly, you might equate magical research with a "skill" of sorts, despite it never being done in a dungeon context, and success being based entirely on gold spent.
Those aside, I don't see any of the d% rolls being attributable to a player proactively telling the ref his character will perform a dungeoneering deed.
Which is what the classic thief skills all are. Which is what this whole discussion was originally about.
So then. The 3LBBs contain examples dungeoneering deeds that look very much like the thief skills. And these are all resolved with 1d6 rolls.
They also contain a plethora of d% rolls that don't look very much like thief skills at all.
That is the entirety of it in a nutshell, right there.
In other words, exactly the same sort of stuff that goes through your head as a DM/Referee when trying to assign probabilities to stuff. When you think probabilities you generally (or at least I generally, and the 3LBBs seem to agree with me) think in terms of percentages, and then you assign d6 rolls and such to it instead if the probabilities seem about the same and it would be quicker.
That is an interesting observation.
Personally I rarely think in percentages. When I'm running a game I simply don't have time. When there are a dozen things all happening at once (which there almost always is) I never think much beyond "high", "medium" or "low" chances. I would certainly not start thinking "Is that 23% likely, or 25% likely? Should he get a +2%? Or a +5%? Oh wait, with the wind behind him, make it +7%. But the light is poor here, take a -4%. And it IS the equinox tonight so that should be a +12%..."
Waysoftheearth: I agree with you in many ways to a certain degree
Thank you, Sir
Well said, but please note that I didn't say anything was more or less important than anything else, only that combat is "at the heart of the game". I believe this to be a reasonable assertion because much of the game system and statistics are expressly for combat. Whether that is true or not, I would still argue that the game doesn't need any system more granular than the existing combat system (I believe I harped on about the virtues of "simplicity" at some length, above).
Fair enough!
Quote:
I can't agree with this Norse.
Every example I can find in the 3LBBs of a player proactively doing anything in an exploration/problem solving context is done with 1d6.
The explicit examples include: . Taking enemy by surprise, . Breaking down doors, . Locating secret doors, . Listening for enemy behind doors.
These all look suspiciously "skill-like" to me. E.g.,
. Taking enemy by surprise --> hiding and/or sneaking . Breaking down doors --> cracking locks holding them shut . Locating secret doors --> finding hidden stuff . Listening for enemy behind doors --> listening, alertness
I agree that there are a lot of d% rolls in the 3LBBs. In fact, here's a list of all of them: [Snipped for brevity]
A neat list, but not exactly "skill-like" are they?
You might, perhaps, equate not drowning with a "swimming skill", even though by-the-book that "skill" would equate to the art of not falling into deep water in plate armour.
Similarly, you might equate magical research with a "skill" of sorts, despite it never being done in a dungeon context, and success being based entirely on gold spent.
Those aside, I don't see any of the d% rolls being attributable to a player proactively telling the ref his character will perform a dungeoneering deed.
Which is what the classic thief skills all are. Which is what this whole discussion was originally about.
So then. The 3LBBs contain examples dungeoneering deeds that look very much like the thief skills. And these are all resolved with 1d6 rolls.
They also contain a plethora of d% rolls that don't look very much like thief skills at all.
That is the entirety of it in a nutshell, right there.
Some interesting points waysoftheearth, and well researched. I would argue that one or two of those percentile rolls are in fact proactive and thus could be considered "skill-like" and I disagree with the assignment of "skill-like" status to several of those chance in 6 rolls you bring up.
Taking enemy by surprise: As this is rolled for both sides and is unrelated to whether either side already knows about the other I don't agree that this is proactive or skill like. If characters are being deliberately proactive about this sort of thing I'd consider the probabilities myself rather than rolling 2in6.
Breaking down doors: given the way the chances of doors being stuck and so on are presented, I see the breaking door chance more a function of randomly deciding if the door is thin/rotted/wonky enough to be broken down.
Listening at doors: likewise, I see this as being based on the door rather than the character.
Which is why I only allow one roll for the whole party, though they may try again with different people and so the odds might be different (although the number rolled would remain the same).
I guess our difference here is one of perception. You see those rolls representing one thing, I see them representing another.
In other words, exactly the same sort of stuff that goes through your head as a DM/Referee when trying to assign probabilities to stuff. When you think probabilities you generally (or at least I generally, and the 3LBBs seem to agree with me) think in terms of percentages, and then you assign d6 rolls and such to it instead if the probabilities seem about the same and it would be quicker.
That is an interesting observation.
Personally I rarely think in percentages. When I'm running a game I simply don't have time. When there are a dozen things all happening at once (which there almost always is) I never think much beyond "high", "medium" or "low" chances. I would certainly not start thinking "Is that 23% likely, or 25% likely? Should he get a +2%? Or a +5%? Oh wait, with the wind behind him, make it +7%. But the light is poor here, take a -4%. And it IS the equinox tonight so that should be a +12%..."
I simply don't have time -- I have a game to run.
Hmm. This is potentially a whole other interesting discussion! I always think in percentages and I guess I sort of assumed others did too. Apparently I'm wrong. Although you erroneously guess that because I use percentiles that I'm thinking in terms of fiddly numbers.
My usual train of thought runs something like this: Well, he's only got an average dex score and a mace doesn't make the best bat, but that orc's head is quite large and sailing fairly slowly, and his years in the Neverwinter Cricket Club will stand him in good stead. So I reckon about a 65% chance of him hitting, scoring a 6 if less than his dex is rolled.
Which is usually processed in only a few seconds, I only roll percentiles because its quicker than converting that mental process to something else, not because I'm calculating to single percentiles.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
I disagree with the assignment of "skill-like" status to several of those chance in 6 rolls you bring up.
Taking enemy by surprise: As this is rolled for both sides and is unrelated to whether either side already knows about the other I don't agree that this is proactive or skill like. If characters are being deliberately proactive about this sort of thing I'd consider the probabilities myself rather than rolling 2in6.
Breaking down doors: given the way the chances of doors being stuck and so on are presented, I see the breaking door chance more a function of randomly deciding if the door is thin/rotted/wonky enough to be broken down.
Listening at doors: likewise, I see this as being based on the door rather than the character.
FWIW, here's how I see it..
REF: A surly orc guard sits hunched on a stool beside the doorway... he's about 30ft away and seems preoccupied with a handful of playing cards.
PLAYER: I sneak up behind him and get my garotte around his throat before he can raise the alarm.
REF: Reckons the player is attempting to sneak up and attack by surprise, and prepares to throw a trusty surprise roll...
---
PLAYER: It looks pretty solid, so I probably can't bash the vault door down. But how about unscrewing the hinges off it?
REF: Reckons it's pretty much another attempt to get past a stubborn door. How do we deal with those..? Oh right, a regular roll versus doors will do it.
---
PLAYER: Those crown jewels have GOT to be trapped or alarmed. I search the pedestal for any sign of trip wires, or pressure plates, or mysterious bumps or holes... anything untoward.
REF: Reckons the player is searching for hidden stuff. Cool, that's pretty much the same thing as searching for secret doors, so I'll give him his usual search roll.
---
REF: There's a long, dark passage ahead. You lantern light illuminates the way ahead just far enough to dimly see an intersection.
PLAYER: I pause stock still for a moment and listen for any movement that might indicate someone (or something) has already seen my light and is coming to investigate...
REF: Hmmm, player listening for noises... oh right, its just like listening at a door, and proceeds to roll his six-sider...
My usual train of thought runs something like this: Well, he's only got an average dex score and a mace doesn't make the best bat, but that orc's head is quite large and sailing fairly slowly, and his years in the Neverwinter Cricket Club will stand him in good stead. So I reckon about a 65% chance of him hitting, scoring a 6 if less than his dex is rolled.
Which is usually processed in only a few seconds, I only roll percentiles because its quicker than converting that mental process to something else, not because I'm calculating to single percentiles.
My likely train of though in the same scenario: He'd be good at that, 4 in 6. Time elapsed: The die is already tumbling.
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 504 Karma: 67
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #52 on Apr 19, 2012, 7:44am »
This is a very interesting discussion. Waysoftheearth, I really like this hypothetical and completely understand your reasons behind it. I think my players might find themselves giving this a spin next time I'm in the DM chair. Thanks.
My likely train of though in the same scenario: He'd be good at that, 4 in 6. Time elapsed: The die is already tumbling.
That would be your entire train of thought? No consideration *at all* given for the advantageous and disadvantageous aspects of a situation? Only for whether a character has been trained at cricket?
Well, that I can't agree on. As a player I would expect the referee to actually consider the situation rather than ignoring any and all aspects of it other than training. Ok, so the actual odds may still be 4 in 6, but I would expect there to be the possibility of it being 3 in 6 or 5 in 6.
Speed is good, but when a quick consideration of the situation takes only a second or two, I can't see how shaving that down to the speed of rolling a die is actually a good thing.
If speed was an issue in a situation I'd recommend skipping the dice rolling altogether, as that is probably the longest bit of the process. Take a look at the situation, take a look at their ability scores and say yes or no, or give a graduated response based on how close their ability score is to the rough target you had in your head. Much quicker.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
I guess I see the Thief's Abilities akin to Saving Throws - a chance to achieve an otherwise unachievable result. The normal man (much like ourselves), has zero chance of open standard locks, hiding in shadows, climbing sheer surfaces, picking pockets etc. The training of the thief at first level, allows for a chance at about 1 in 6.
Barring climb walls, the thief skills are really all d20 rolls (all are in steps of 5%; I think Norse mentioned this above). At first level they are about 10-20% chance, which is close to 1 in 6 (16%).
So, basically you could add a line to the Thief Table that says "Normal Man": 0% (or 0 in 6).
By moving F/MU/C, and by implication Normal Man, to 2 in 6, and Thieves at 4 in 6, you are just changing the goalposts and making locks, hiding, moving silently, etc overall easier - IMO, easier than in real life.
If a lock is easy enough for normal characters to open, just have them achieve the result without rolling. The Thief's Abilities are for situations that are beyond the normal. The dungeon should have difficult obstacles.
It's like you are inside my head Zen. CoZ has three paragrpahs on using saving throws to resolve dangerous feats like some of the thief skills.
The thing about locks though is nobody is making a distinction about kinds of locks. Meaning, if your campaign has medieval style locks then anybody could pick them with a little patients, but if they are the equivalent of modern padlocks then only special tools and training will work, so it is easy to talk past each other depending on what you are imagining those locks to be.
The explicit examples include: . Taking enemy by surprise,
I noticed you put it that way in the OP and let it slide, but since you bring it up again I guess I have to point out that its not quite what the roll is.
The surprise roll determines if surprise has occured, not if a character can effect surprise per se. In other words it is not meant as a proactive skill roll.
In many cases it won't make a difference, which is why I didn't mention it before, but take these two examples:
"CAL: Two of us (specifying which two) will throw our weight against the door to open it. All will be ready for combat. REF: (After rolling two dice:) The door opens! You can't be surprised, but the monsters - you see half-a-dozen Gnolls - can be (Here a check for surprise is made,..."U&WA:12
"For example a Wyvern surprises a party of four characters when they round a corner into a large open area. It attacks..." U&WA:9
In neither case is anybody trying to surprise someone. They simply "can be" surprised by the circumstance. Actively trying to surprise - such as lying in ambush, might or might not involve other rolls.
. Breaking down doors, . Locating secret doors, . Listening for enemy behind doors.
These all look suspiciously "skill-like" to me. E.g.,
. Taking enemy by surprise --> hiding and/or sneaking . Breaking down doors --> cracking locks holding them shut . Locating secret doors --> finding hidden stuff . Listening for enemy behind doors --> listening, alertness
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "breaking down doors skill". Isn't this, like spiking a door, about how good and stuck shut a door is?
Also note that both this roll and the listening roll are the same for all characters, regardless of level or other factors except race. That suggest the roll is about the circumstance, not the skilfulness of the character.
You only get "better"at hearing or for that matter, sensing secret doors if you are reincarnated. So the odds of hearing through a door seem to be a factor of the door and biology, rather than a "skill" of the character.
Again a reference to consider from the play sample where the "alertness" of the character does seem to be the issue: "He checks for monsters wandering in, and on the forth try one is indicated. However, as there was a listener at the door it is approaching, he also checks to see if it is detected, allowing a good probability that it will be heard."
Here in a case where a dwarf player is actively attempting to be alert to oncoming danger by listening for monsters at a door they had just broken open, Gygax assigns "a good probability".
That's a recommendation to pick a chance (percentile apparently, but read as you please). befitting the situation in what is apparently a character skill context - an alertness skill roll if you will.
Personally I rarely think in percentages. When I'm running a game I simply don't have time. When there are a dozen things all happening at once (which there almost always is) I never think much beyond "high", "medium" or "low" chances. I would certainly not start thinking "Is that 23% likely, or 25% likely? Should he get a +2%? Or a +5%? Oh wait, with the wind behind him, make it +7%. But the light is poor here, take a -4%. And it IS the equinox tonight so that should be a +12%..."
I simply don't have time -- I have a game to run.
I appreciate the explanation of your motivation Simon - and great job on compiling the % list.
Personally I do find it easier to think in percentiles. If you said "chances are low" I would jump in my mind to a figure like 15% or something. For me, that's easier than trying to convert a die to a probability, but we all work a little differently.
That would be your entire train of thought? No consideration *at all* given for the advantageous and disadvantageous aspects of a situation? Only for whether a character has been trained at cricket?
Well, that I can't agree on. As a player I would expect the referee to actually consider the situation rather than ignoring any and all aspects of it other than training. Ok, so the actual odds may still be 4 in 6, but I would expect there to be the possibility of it being 3 in 6 or 5 in 6.
Thanks for raising this Norse.
Of course it is always the referee's prerogative to rule that the odds are different on a case by case basis when there are compelling circumstances.
But this is rarely necessary with a coarse-grained system. A circumstantial factor would have to be worth 15% or 20% before it would be noticed on a 1d6 roll. There are very few of these in OD&D.
On the other hand, there are a lot more adjustments worth 5% or 10%. With a fine grained system (such as percentile) players do, as you say, have the expectation that the referee will consider all the myriad factors, and adjust every die accordingly. I agree, and I mentioned the same effect in my rant about simplicity.
In a coarse grained system, expectations are set differently. And quite appropriately, in my view. There are very few "big" modifiers in OD&D, and so few modifiers ever need to be considered when throwing a d6.
My own experience with this is that most players are actually quite happy to forget about all the fiddly adjustments and focus on the game.
So long as the referee is consistent and keeps the game moving along, the players will be content.
The explicit examples include: . Taking enemy by surprise,
I noticed you put it that way in the OP and let it slide, but since you bring it up again I guess I have to point out that its not quite what the roll is.
The surprise roll determines if surprise has occured, not if a character can effect surprise per se. In other words it is not meant as a proactive skill roll.
Thanks for your comments Aldarron.
May I humbly remind the readership that I began this thread with:
Examples of various dungeoneering "skills" are illustrated in the 3LBBs. While these are not intended to be exhaustive, whatever remains unexplained can be extrapolated from that which is explained.
The 3LBBs were never intended to be complete or exhaustive. The referee is expected to extend what is presented therein, not be limited to exactly the few examples provided.
I am not arguing that this notion of dungeoneering "skills" is explicit, or even implicit, in the 3LBBs. I have been trying to explain how one could easy extend what is in the 3LBBs to cover the very useful notion of dungeoneering skills.
Regarding you comments on the various "skills", and specifically the case of surprise, you seem to be arguing that "circumstance dictates what happens".
This is clearly the antithesis of what actually happens in play.
It is explicitly the role of the players to cause stuff to happen, and then the referee's role to report back how the world responds as a result. Players are forever saying "I sneak into the room...", "I search the statue...", "I set fire to it...", "I listen for any noise..." and all the rest. That is what the players do!
If circumstance dictates what happens, then player actions are hardly important. If the players can't intentionally cause things to happen, but things just "happen to them" according to circumstance, why bother having players at all? That sounds to me like a referee-only simulation, rather than an interactive game of D&D.
The thing about locks though is nobody is making a distinction about kinds of locks. Meaning, if your campaign has medieval style locks then anybody could pick them with a little patients, but if they are the equivalent of modern padlocks then only special tools and training will work, so it is easy to talk past each other depending on what you are imagining those locks to be.
For locksmiths who aren't thieves, yes. Thieves? They can pick the lock with any kind of tool they can improvise. Thieves are MacGyver, in my view. The rules support this indirectly: Greyhawk lists one of the thief abilities as "open locks by picking or foiling magical closures" (emphasis added.)
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "breaking down doors skill". Isn't this, like spiking a door, about how good and stuck shut a door is?
Also note that both this roll and the listening roll are the same for all characters, regardless of level or other factors except race. That suggest the roll is about the circumstance, not the skilfulness of the character.
I don't even think a bad roll when breaking down a door means that you have to roll again. It seems to be a roll to kick/smash open a door *with one try*, and thus still have a chance to surprise the monster.
My reasoning behind this is the rules for breaking down doors in the shipboard combat section don't require dice rolls at all, just time.
Quote:
Breaking down doors, chopping through walls or decks or cutting rigging should be set by the referee with an eye towards the players individual size and strength within any guidelines set down in these rules. So for instance when a giant attacks the door on a standard ship it will probably only cost him half his movement points while it would take ten men an entire turn to break it down.
(presumably, these are 1-minute "combat turns", but let's not get into that argument again... it's still going on in another thread...)
However, I agree with your general conception of break down door/hear noise, and apply it pretty much to all rolls. I don't use skill rolls, I use skills to modify circumstance rolls.
Regarding you comments on the various "skills", and specifically the case of surprise, you seem to be arguing that "circumstance dictates what happens".
This is clearly the antithesis of what actually happens in play.
It is explicitly the role of the players to cause stuff to happen, and then the referee's role to report back how the world responds as a result. Players are forever saying "I sneak into the room...", "I search the statue...", "I set fire to it...", "I listen for any noise..." and all the rest. That is what the players do!
If circumstance dictates what happens, then player actions are hardly important. If the players can't intentionally cause things to happen, but things just "happen to them" according to circumstance, why bother having players at all? That sounds to me like a referee-only simulation, rather than an interactive game of D&D.
Of course I agree entirely that D&D is player driven, and never was there intent to argue otherwise. I'm not sure what led you to think so but rest assured such was not my meaning.
However suggesting that "circumstance" is the antithesis of player decision is a false dichotmy. There will always be circumstances which players encounter and which have consequence which players must somehow or other deal with.
Surprise happens. It happens when a die roll says it does. Droping items happens. It happens when a die roll following surprise says it does. Bite or sting or fire breathing happen. Falling victim to traps happen. These and many more circumstances happen when a die roll says they do, regardless of player desires. Players must face the dice and act as seems best to them.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3632089479/384133a24f0d799205d632883fe0448e.jpeg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_u00qWD-_dM4/TNyW0RtBXkI/AAAAAAAAAI4/pHmT9bbqfrk/s400/backswords%2526bucklers.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")