I guess it depends on how "high rolling" so to speak characters are re: gambling debt. I think my party may have around 500 gold between the lot of them, so if a character stakes their entire coin into gambling (which gamblers do actually do) or even enough to upset their ability to pay for upkeep expenses, well debt is as good an excuse for adventuring as the more noble reasons.
But yeah, I think some players and groups may be more interested in this background task thing. Other table would actually want to play rounds of Three Dragon Ante or Baldur's Bones; but when it comes to it not ever gamer is necessarily skilled at that type of gaming, so we have background tasks instead which the DM can flavor anyway they like.
I agree though that the results table, and the system to generate the results, could use another slot for "washes".
Another thing on the complications, I'd rather integrate complications into the checks via nat 1s than have a an addition 10% side check mechanic put in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It depends on PC behavior too. There is literally no mechanism in normal gambling that can force you to go into debt beyond your initial bet. So as a PC, I might say, "I am willing to gamble 100 gp but no more." Unless the DM wants me to make some kind of "Willpower" type saving throw (CON maybe?) to see if I can avoid a "gambling addiction," it should not be possible to force a character to lose more than the amount he or she bets.
I just don't like the whole thing, actually. I'd run it a different way for sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess it depends on how "high rolling" so to speak characters are re: gambling debt. I think my party may have around 500 gold between the lot of them, so if a character stakes their entire coin into gambling (which gamblers do actually do) or even enough to upset their ability to pay for upkeep expenses, well debt is as good an excuse for adventuring as the more noble reasons.
But yeah, I think some players and groups may be more interested in this background task thing. Other table would actually want to play rounds of Three Dragon Ante or Baldur's Bones; but when it comes to it not ever gamer is necessarily skilled at that type of gaming, so we have background tasks instead which the DM can flavor anyway they like.
I agree though that the results table, and the system to generate the results, could use another slot for "washes".
Another thing on the complications, I'd rather integrate complications into the checks via nat 1s than have a an addition 10% side check mechanic put in.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It depends on PC behavior too. There is literally no mechanism in normal gambling that can force you to go into debt beyond your initial bet. So as a PC, I might say, "I am willing to gamble 100 gp but no more." Unless the DM wants me to make some kind of "Willpower" type saving throw (CON maybe?) to see if I can avoid a "gambling addiction," it should not be possible to force a character to lose more than the amount he or she bets.
I just don't like the whole thing, actually. I'd run it a different way for sure.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.