So I'm writing up my little handout to Continuum 2010 and Pendragon gaming.....

And I read (again) the rules on Disheartened (KAP p73 bottom right hand column)

"-5 modifier on all further rolls made during the situation".

So this set me thinking, given that it is a dice roll modifier rather than a skills modifier.

a) I have a skill of 18, and I will succeed on dice rolls of 6-20 now that I am disheartened. CAn I critical on a 13, or because I can no longer roll my skill of 18, then I have no chance of criticals for the moment?

b) I have a skill of 4. On a roll of 1-5 of the dice, which is modified to 0 or a negative number then presumably I have failed? On a roll of 6 (modified to 1) I have succeeded, and on a roll of 9 (modified to 4) i have now criticalled ?

So, providing my skill is 15 or below then my actual chance of a success has not altered, merely the numbers needed to roll that success and I still have a chance of a critical.

Of course, part of me (the GM) thinks that negative results should result in a bout of madness.

Am I understandting things correctly?

Chris

Sorry, you're being too literal.

The -5 penalty is a -5 penalty to any rating you happen to roll against while Disheartened.
a) you succeed on a roll of 1-13, and 13 is a critical.
b) with a skill of 4, your skill is now -1, so you cannot succeed.

Sorry, you're being too literal.

The -5 penalty is a -5 penalty to any rating you happen to roll against while Disheartened.
a) you succeed on a roll of 1-13, and 13 is a critical.
b) with a skill of 4, your skill is now -1, so you cannot succeed.



I may be being literal but the reason is in my quote from the book as stated. I'd always played it as -5 off skills - which is what you are saying - but not what is written where it specifically says modifier to dice rolls. There's being literal and there's playing what the rules have actually written. I'm now off to go and see what earlier KAP editions said since I'm being careful to ensure that I'm playing KAP 5 at Continuum and not KAP 4 which is what I have run most, and there are some changes.

Chris

Sorry, I wasn't pretty brusque there. I do recognise that wording can be read in the way you have, but I have no doubt that applying the modifier to abilities rather than rolls is the correct one.
But even if the "-5 to roll rather than skill" was the correct rule, I suggest that you are better off using the alternate reading, especially for a con where you want to keep rules as simple as possible. The -5 to rolls interpretation introduces some dice weirdness which you pointed out, and you can easily avoid the confusion and questions it might raise without harming gameplay at all.

There are no real gameplay differences between KAP 4 and 5, so the KAP4 rules are a good resource to check if the wording is less ambiguous.

Sorry, I wasn't pretty brusque there. I do recognise that wording can be read in the way you have, but I have no doubt that applying the modifier to abilities rather than rolls is the correct one.
But even if the "-5 to roll rather than skill" was the correct rule, I suggest that you are better off using the alternate reading, especially for a con where you want to keep rules as simple as possible. The -5 to rolls interpretation introduces some dice weirdness which you pointed out, and you can easily avoid the confusion and questions it might raise without harming gameplay at all.

There are no real gameplay differences between KAP 4 and 5, so the KAP4 rules are a good resource to check if the wording is less ambiguous.


Darren,
I appreciate your response, and I think you have been playing the same game effect as me on the skills modification.

It is not a question of mis-reading the rule or an alternative reading, which I why I used the quotation marks and directly quoted from the book and gave my reference to enable it to be checked. To me "-5 to rolls" is not the same statement as "-5 to skills".

Having just looked, KAP 4 (the one with stonehenge on the cover) p204 uses very similar wording "Failure:character is disheartened. He may act as the player chooses, but a modifier of -5 is applied to all subsequent rolls for hte duration of the situation that evoked the passion roll". KAP 3 (bluish cover with Arthur and the hawk) on p128 uses exactly the same wording. (KAP 1 has a penalty of a loss of 1 pt in the passion and describes melancholia in general terms to be overseen by the GM effectively).

Doing a one page player handout on mechanics for Continuum in just under two weeks time - I am trying to check that I use correct rules - and those handouts are likely to be the basis for any future games run at conventions as well.

If Greg means -5 to skills then it would be helpful if he said so and corrected it in the errata.

Chris

And I read (again) the rules on Disheartened (KAP p73 bottom right hand column)

"-5 modifier on all further rolls made during the situation".



That is an error.
You are correct--it ought to be -5 to all skills.
It should say

I'm not surprised the earlier rule uses the same term. This "a modifier to rolls" kind of wording was common historically in roleplaying texts, and is basically shorthand for "a modifier of the usual sort used in this system".

This is because the term "roll" here does not apply to the actual d20 roll, but is shorthand for "this instance of resolving an action through dice rolls." The term "roll" is referring to the entire "roll a d20, compare against skill, determine result" sequence, and the actual roll of the dice is a small part of the overall sequence, and follows the same rules as used in the rest of the system. You can kind see this in the way your example used the term "passion roll" - in fact, think of whenever you call for a 'roll' in the game. You might call for a DEX roll, or a Sword roll, and you might apply a +5 or -5 modifier to that roll. When you did that, wouldn't you apply the modifier to the skills value, even though you are calling this a skill roll?

Operating within that understanding, I hope it's clear that a "-5 modifier to rolls" is indeed identical to "a -5 modifier to skills." But I've belaboured the discussion long enough - hopefully Greg will be along soon to clarify. (Speak of the devil and he appears!)

Thanks Greg and Darren.

(Greg as always is correct in saying that it is in the book, if only one knows where to look - see below)

Having dug some further then I think I've perhaps been getting too strict in ensuring that "one page pendragon" uses consistent terminology so that people who have a crib sheet to refer to have a consistent use of terms.

My reading is clearly at fault, not only in practical terms but also how the rules are written. I think a problem arises because under the Inspired bit in the previous paragaraph it talks about a modifier to a skill (KAP p73).

As mentioned the wording is "-5 modifier on all further rolls made during the situation". If we leap forward to KAP page 93 "modifiers" then second paragraph "modifiers are always added to or subtracted from teh characters statistic values, not to the roll iteself".

If in doubt, then look deeper for the mysteries....

Chris