Post History
After taking the time for a careful reading of the full ruleset, my impression is that it's intended to represent tasks where there are significant negative consequences for failure. In other words...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-06-12T02:08:04Z (11 months ago)
- After taking the time for a careful reading of the full ruleset, my impression is that it's intended to represent tasks where there are significant negative consequences for failure. In other words, what if you fail? It's "dangerous" if, upon failing:
- * You would die
- * You're a wimp and would get hurt a little (ie. scratch)
- * You're very loyal and your master would be displeased
- * It would embarrass you, and you're very arrogant
- * The adventure would fail or be impeded
- This is a bit like the old take-10 rule from DnD. That one was disallowed for *both* dangerous and one-time attempts. In this case, not being repeatable shouldn't count as dangerous, unless your character has a *very* fragile self-image.
- > Is waking up a sleeping baby "dangerous"?
* Yes if you are terrified by noises. (many cats)- * Yes if the baby would/could wake up some dangerous monster.
- * Yes if the noise would, for example, cause your sneaking master to be discovered and ruin his cunning plan.
- * No if it's just a sleeping baby.
- > Is splotching ink across a library book "dangerous"?
- * Yes if you are terrified of messes.
- * Yes if the book is an ancient tome and you greatly respect knowledge.
- * Yes if the book is magical and spill could release magic or anger the book itself.
* No if it's just a mundane book, mundane ink, and nothing particularly important is defaced by the splotch.
- After taking the time for a careful reading of the full ruleset, my impression is that it's intended to represent tasks where there are significant negative consequences for failure. In other words, what if you fail? It's "dangerous" if, upon failing:
- * You would die
- * You're a wimp and would get hurt a little (ie. scratch)
- * You're very loyal and your master would be displeased
- * It would embarrass you, and you're very arrogant
- * The adventure would fail or be impeded
- This is a bit like the old take-10 rule from DnD. That one was disallowed for *both* dangerous and one-time attempts. In this case, not being repeatable shouldn't count as dangerous, unless your character has a *very* fragile self-image.
- > Is waking up a sleeping baby "dangerous"?
- * Yes if you are terrified by noises. (many cats, although in this RPG it seems like cats become megalomaniacs rather than rocketing under the nearest furniture when startled)
- * Yes if the baby would/could wake up some dangerous monster.
- * Yes if the noise would, for example, cause your sneaking master to be discovered and ruin his cunning plan.
- * No if it's just a sleeping baby.
- > Is splotching ink across a library book "dangerous"?
- * Yes if you are terrified of messes.
- * Yes if the book is an ancient tome and you greatly respect knowledge.
- * Yes if the book is magical and spill could release magic or anger the book itself.
- * No if it's just a mundane book, mundane ink, and nothing particularly important is defaced by the splotch.
- The consequence of failing dangerous tasks too often is to *lose it*. It stands to reason that if you keep screwing up and upleasant things happen to you, that you would lose it even if they're not that *dangerous* per se. For example, cold water being dumped on a cat: Hardly deadly, but I can see how the cat would *lose it*.
#2: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-06-12T02:04:46Z (11 months ago)
- After taking the time for a careful reading of the full ruleset, my impression is that it's intended to represent tasks where there are significant negative consequences for failure. In other words, what if you fail? It's "dangerous" if, upon failing:
- * You would die
- * You're a wimp and would get hurt a little (ie. scratch)
- * You're very loyal and your master would be displeased
- * It would embarrass you, and you're very arrogant
- * The adventure would fail or be impeded
- This is a bit like the old take-10 rule from DnD. That one was disallowed for *both* dangerous and one-time attempts. In this case, not being repeatable shouldn't count as dangerous, unless your character has a *very* fragile self-image.
- > Is waking up a sleeping baby "dangerous"?
* Yes if you are personally terrified of it.- * Yes if the baby would/could wake up some dangerous monster.
- * Yes if the noise would, for example, cause your sneaking master to be discovered and ruin his cunning plan.
- * No if it's just a sleeping baby.
- > Is splotching ink across a library book "dangerous"?
- * Yes if you are terrified of messes.
- * Yes if the book is an ancient tome and you greatly respect knowledge.
- * Yes if the book is magical and spill could release magic or anger the book itself.
- * No if it's just a mundane book, mundane ink, and nothing particularly important is defaced by the splotch.
- After taking the time for a careful reading of the full ruleset, my impression is that it's intended to represent tasks where there are significant negative consequences for failure. In other words, what if you fail? It's "dangerous" if, upon failing:
- * You would die
- * You're a wimp and would get hurt a little (ie. scratch)
- * You're very loyal and your master would be displeased
- * It would embarrass you, and you're very arrogant
- * The adventure would fail or be impeded
- This is a bit like the old take-10 rule from DnD. That one was disallowed for *both* dangerous and one-time attempts. In this case, not being repeatable shouldn't count as dangerous, unless your character has a *very* fragile self-image.
- > Is waking up a sleeping baby "dangerous"?
- * Yes if you are terrified by noises. (many cats)
- * Yes if the baby would/could wake up some dangerous monster.
- * Yes if the noise would, for example, cause your sneaking master to be discovered and ruin his cunning plan.
- * No if it's just a sleeping baby.
- > Is splotching ink across a library book "dangerous"?
- * Yes if you are terrified of messes.
- * Yes if the book is an ancient tome and you greatly respect knowledge.
- * Yes if the book is magical and spill could release magic or anger the book itself.
- * No if it's just a mundane book, mundane ink, and nothing particularly important is defaced by the splotch.
#1: Initial revision
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-06-12T02:03:43Z (11 months ago)
After taking the time for a careful reading of the full ruleset, my impression is that it's intended to represent tasks where there are significant negative consequences for failure. In other words, what if you fail? It's "dangerous" if, upon failing: * You would die * You're a wimp and would get hurt a little (ie. scratch) * You're very loyal and your master would be displeased * It would embarrass you, and you're very arrogant * The adventure would fail or be impeded This is a bit like the old take-10 rule from DnD. That one was disallowed for *both* dangerous and one-time attempts. In this case, not being repeatable shouldn't count as dangerous, unless your character has a *very* fragile self-image. > Is waking up a sleeping baby "dangerous"? * Yes if you are personally terrified of it. * Yes if the baby would/could wake up some dangerous monster. * Yes if the noise would, for example, cause your sneaking master to be discovered and ruin his cunning plan. * No if it's just a sleeping baby. > Is splotching ink across a library book "dangerous"? * Yes if you are terrified of messes. * Yes if the book is an ancient tome and you greatly respect knowledge. * Yes if the book is magical and spill could release magic or anger the book itself. * No if it's just a mundane book, mundane ink, and nothing particularly important is defaced by the splotch.