Minor game stuff from around the web for commentary...

[Voss]

If people play RPGs they will run into flawed rules. The instrument rule isn't a perfect rule, but it is a typical rule that you're likely to run into when dealing with RPG social systems. .

Feel free to justify this. Because jumping through a bunch of hoops to make a time wasting roll to get a shitty bonus only to be spat on by the DM/rule creator isn't the same as 'skill focus: diplomacy,' or +2 synergy bonus from 5 ranks in Sense Motive, which have virtually none of those drawbacks (and apparently a better bonus).


And regardless of whether or not you're defending anything, you are arguing that passive acceptance of shit rules and shitty behavior is somehow a virtue, in quite the same way that people used to argue for beating children because it made them 'tougher' and better able to deal with Real Life. [/i]

[Cyberzombie]

Zombie, you're being stupid. The focus here isn't on DM advice and support. This is mainly a game design forum. Of course there aren't perfect games and of course DMs need to learn how to deal with the shitty rules they're given. People here will in the meanwhile keep throwing shit at bad rules and examining what makes good rules.

The game design moral of the story is: Don't assume your rules are perfect, and write them in such a way as to give the DM some ability to cover for you. Do not encourage your DMs to run them like rules robots. You're not going to be that perfect of a designer, and you're being stupidly arrogant to think you're going to get it perfect, especially on a first version of your rules. You will have oversights and mistakes in your rules. So give your rules some ability to handle designer error. Let your players/DMs know that you're not perfect and that while you did the best you can, not every wording is going to be 100%.

[deaddmwalking]

1) There are already rules for 'aid another'.
2) This largely duplicates the effects of Inspire Competence.
3) There is a rule for 'Masterwork Tool' that indicates it would grant a +2 bonus on a check.
4) I'm not sure if this is in the SRD, but I'm certain it was in the Core Books

It's an incredibly stupid and narrow-minded assumption that everyone is playing versions of D&D game with these rules. They're not

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/20 ... lance.html

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com

dndwithpornstars

dndwithpornstars

How incredibly narrow-minded of me to assume that anyone who claims to be playing D&D isn't instead an out-and-out liar. Fortunately for me, this means that I'm now free to assume that you're lying whenever you speak rather than waiting until you have been proven to be a liar. Honestly, that's nice, because so far, anything you've said turns out to be either a lie or a blatant attempt at misdirection or goal-shifting.

The justification for the rule is it gives the scene where a musician player plays their instrument tension about whether there's a bonus.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Here's the thing - if the 'negotiation' has serious consequences, then there is tension whether they play their instrument or not - the tension comes from the success of the negotiation. If the 'negotiation' has no serious consequences, then failure or success won't make things more tense... If the negotiation can only succeed if the character succeeds at his 'play instrument check' (and since you've been vague as to the amount of bonus - though if I didn't assume you were always lying I would think that it was +1) it doesn't really make the play instrument roll 'tense' - it just adds two points of failure... And if the character can't fail his roll (which, since you're apparently not playing D&D I have no idea whether that is or is not possible) then there is no tension as a result of this... Since you've implied (though - again, you were probably lying) that they'll usually be successful, I don't imagine it is too tense - most likely it seems that they get a bonus that they probably didn't need. Assuming that they COULD succeed without the bonus, and the bonus is +1, 5% of the time (assuming you're rolling a d20) the check actually matters - when they fail by 1. If they succeeded without the bonus, then the music doesn't matter; if they failed by more than 1 the bonus from the music doesn't matter. Over the course of many such 'negotiations', it might make a difference, but not enough to create tension.

So, if you want to talk about the rule based solely on your justification I quoted, I think your rule fails. I think your players are smart enough that they don't feel any extra tension.

If you can't tell what your friends do and don't like, you are bad at GMing. And bad at being a grown-up. The behavior of their PC on paper will be the same, but they--the human there--will not act the same.

I have a lot of respect for actors/actresses in the adult entertainment industry. Despite a reputation for 'bad acting', I firmly believe that the majority can make themselves look like they're enjoying anything.

Moreover, if someone is enjoying something, I probably won't be able to tell the reason. Whether they're enjoying 'talking about music in character' or they're enjoying 'getting a bonus to make them more likely to succeed' - the fact remains that they're having fun. I like to consider BEHAVIOR, not ATTITUDE (management training 101 stuff, here). If someone looks like they're having fun, acts like they're having fun (even if they're doing it for the 'wrong reasons'), I'm going to believe that they're having fun. Unless they're you - because I'm going to assume that you're lying from now on unless proven otherwise.

Which seems to make sense until you realize nobody's ever been thrown out.

You know, I wouldn't normally go in this direction, but I feel like you've brought up something that deserves a closer look.

Are you saying that nobody has ever left your game? Has every player you've ever had continue to play with you? That's great - surely a positive proof that everyone has enjoyed your games. Or have you lost players? Why do you think that is? I'm sure some have moved or gone away, but if the game was 'perfectly tailored' to their enjoyment, surely they all would have stayed if it were possible, right? Some of them left even though they didn't move? Despite the fact that the games were perfectly suited to your table to ensure everyone had the maximum amount of fun? How is that possible?

If you tell them that your game plays like a musical, people will give you weird looks. I mean come on man, that shit is just ridiculous and stupid. I don't know what kind of players you try to attract to your games, but I tend to go for the people that like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, comic books and video game RPGs. I don't see ripping off the style of a Disney musical as doing anything but turning off potential players in mass numbers.

It's funny, but I remember a lot of singing in the books. The elves were singing when the Dwarves entered the valley (Tra-la), Tom Bombadil sang (The River King's Daughter), the Dwarves Sang (Far over the Misty Mountains), the Ents sang (ooom-maa something about trees being stronger than stone). There was a LOT of singing in those books.

There's also a lot of singing among people from earlier times - probably due to the fact that recorded music wasn't available. Sailors were well known singers (shanties), soldiers were well known singers (marching songs) - we think it looks silly NOW, but for most of recorded history, singing more or less all the time on the job wasn't just normal, it was expected.

Actually, by your own freaking logic a world were people both CAN get a bonus from playing a musical insrument prior to a social encounter and KNOW that this is the result is a world WITHOUT MUSIC.

Wow. This is all kinds of stupid and it deserves being called out.

Music and psychology are well known phenomena. Have you ever wondered why shopping malls play Christmas Carols for 3 months of the year? Did you know that there are known effects that increase the amount people spend when you play carols? Did you know that designing a 'soundscape' for your business or restaurant is a real job that people have. Why would you spend money to create a special 'sound' for your establishment if it didn't have a profound effect on people's psychology?

I think you'd really enjoy doing some research on all the ways we're manipulated in our daily lives by audio and visual cues - and even when we KNOW what's happening, we're pretty cool about it.

Though I have to admit, I'm tempted to start screaming at the cashiers at the next store I walk into 'YOU"RE TRYING TO CONTROL MY MIND WITH YOUR MUSIC!'

[Mistborn]

The game design moral of the story is: Don't assume your rules are perfect, and write them in such a way as to give the DM some ability to cover for you.

No the moral of the story is to have some critical minded playtesters look over you rules before release them to the general public. GMs shouldn't have to gainsay you rules to have a fun game because you were payed actual money to write them.

[Voss]

Zombie, you're being stupid. The focus here isn't on DM advice and support. This is mainly a game design forum. Of course there aren't perfect games and of course DMs need to learn how to deal with the shitty rules they're given. People here will in the meanwhile keep throwing shit at bad rules and examining what makes good rules.

The game design moral of the story is: Don't assume your rules are perfect, and write them in such a way as to give the DM some ability to cover for you. Do not encourage your DMs to run them like rules robots. You're not going to be that perfect of a designer, and you're being stupidly arrogant to think you're going to get it perfect, especially on a first version of your rules. You will have oversights and mistakes in your rules. So give your rules some ability to handle designer error. Let your players/DMs know that you're not perfect and that while you did the best you can, not ever wording is going to be 100%.

Did someone never give you a talk about failure and trying your best when you were a kid and you failed a test or lost at a sporting event? Because this is basic childhood shit that you don't actually need to tell adults.

Of course the rules aren't going to be perfect. But that still doesn't excuse passively accepting shitty design.

Not to mention that half the point of this thread is pointing out that the music instrument crap is bad design, rather than perfect design (or even, as you bizarrely argue and can't back up, acceptable design). And that Monte is a shitbag for actually admitting that he gave up on even passable game design while simultaneously still selling shit to people for actual money, rather than doing what he obviously wants to do: write setting books and fiction full time.

[deaddmwalking]

Zombie, you're being stupid. The focus here isn't on DM advice and support. This is mainly a game design forum. Of course there aren't perfect games and of course DMs need to learn how to deal with the shitty rules they're given. People here will in the meanwhile keep throwing shit at bad rules and examining what makes good rules.

The game design moral of the story is: Don't assume your rules are perfect, and write them in such a way as to give the DM some ability to cover for you. Do not encourage your DMs to run them like rules robots. You're not going to be that perfect of a designer, and you're being stupidly arrogant to think you're going to get it perfect, especially on a first version of your rules. You will have oversights and mistakes in your rules. So give your rules some ability to handle designer error. Let your players/DMs know that you're not perfect and that while you did the best you can, not ever wording is going to be 100%.

Hope this isn't a double-post.

The thrust of this thread is not: "Don't assume your rules are perfect'. The thrust of the thread is: if you publish a rule as an example of a good rule and it is BAD, don't be surprised when people point out it's bad.

If you call people assholes because they don't like your bad rule, you're probably an asshole.

Personally, I don't think the example bad rule is prone to abuse - it's bad for a host of other reasons. And sure - when presented with a published product you'll accept that some rules might not work as intended or be exploitable - and you may have to change them. But we're not talking about a published product - we're talking to the designer of said rule and telling him why it's bad, and he still doesn't get it.

And that's what we do here - we talk about rules (good and bad) and more importantly, WHY they're good or bad, and that helps people who want to make better rules make better rules.

Lambasting Zak S. isn't going to help him become better - he's pathologically incapable of recognizing even the possibility that he's made an error. But beating him over the head with why his rule is bad is incredibly instructive to all of the spectators who are not Zak S.

[Kaelik]

After a portal to stupid dimension opened and Zak arrived here for the first time, he resisted being mean to us, trying to take the high road for what seemed to be forever.

This is as false as false could ever be.

[nockermensch]

After a portal to stupid dimension opened and Zak arrived here for the first time, he resisted being mean to us, trying to take the high road for what seemed to be forever.

This is as false as false could ever be.

Eh, I'm remembering wrong then. I'll re-read his first thread.

EDIT: Actually, I skimmed the first big thread shitmuffin took part on again and it seems I was remembering right. He was much more collected back then, to the point that you say that he's taking the high-road by page 3, regarding the way he just backhandedly calls the Den dumb for not understanding his ideas. Then Phonelobster tells Zak to go fuck himself by page 5 and from that point on things are business as usual, but Zak keeps insisting that he already had addressed the criticisms (he hadn't) and we're just not getting what he means. By the 29th page he said somebody was shitty and I think that was the worst insult he threw there (then again, I just skimmed the thread). In the meanwhile, zombie cried again that the Den was being mean to people on the internet.

Now with this thread, by page 5 onwards Zak's already calling people morons, illiterate wads and assholes when they disagree with him.

[Zak S]

1) There are already rules for 'aid another'.
2) This largely duplicates the effects of Inspire Competence.
3) There is a rule for 'Masterwork Tool' that indicates it would grant a +2 bonus on a check.
4) I'm not sure if this is in the SRD, but I'm certain it was in the Core Books

It's an incredibly stupid and narrow-minded assumption that everyone is playing versions of D&D game with these rules. They're not

How incredibly narrow-minded of me to assume that anyone who claims to be playing D&D isn't instead an out-and-out liar.

Oh my god did you actually not know there were other editions of d&d before 3rd? Seriously: up until now Why did you think it was called "3rd"?

You should look at those earlier editions--a lot have none of those rules you just listed in them.

[PhoneLobster]

Oh my god did you actually not know there were other editions of d&d before 3rd?

Why not be honest you lying shit bag Justin Bieber.

You don't actually play those earlier editions either now do you?

[Zak S]

Oh my god did you actually not know there were other editions of d&d before 3rd?

Why not be honest you lying shit bag Justin Bieber.

You don't actually play those earlier editions either now do you?

Of course I do.
What insane universe are you people from?

[momothefiddler]

It is so amazingly kind of you to, when you move your goalposts, helpfully point out the holes where they used to be.

[Parthenon]

Why was music adding to diplomacy rolls not a rule in the first place?

Why are diplomatic parties not expected to have a traveling band with them to play a fanfare as the diplomat enters the court to make the diplomat look more impressive?

Why did Aladdin have a song and dance as he entered Agrabah while pretending to be a prince except to help his bluff check and diplomacy check with the sultan? Didn't his song with Jasmine help his seduction roll?

As far as I can tell this adds to the game, and gives a reason for bards to even exist. This is a great rule.

[Stubbazubba]

It's an incredibly stupid and narrow-minded assumption that everyone is playing versions of D&D game with these rules. They're not

How incredibly narrow-minded of me to assume that anyone who claims to be playing D&D isn't instead an out-and-out liar.

Oh my god did you actually not know there were other editions of d&d before 3rd? Seriously: up until now Why did you think it was called "3rd"?

You should look at those earlier editions--a lot have none of those rules you just listed in them.

That's real cute! Mind responding to any of the dozens of other substantive arguments, or are you too much of an insecure child to even try to articulate an explanation? What, just going to side-step this whole thing again?

Edit:

To keep this real simple, I'll even narrow it down for you: Why do you think that adding more rolls necessarily adds tension? Respond to the whole tension thing, since that is now the peg that you're trying to hang this rule of yours on, having abandoned two other justifications.

Edit 2:

Just so you don't have to go looking for it:

Here's the thing - if the 'negotiation' has serious consequences, then there is tension whether they play their instrument or not - the tension comes from the success of the negotiation. If the 'negotiation' has no serious consequences, then failure or success won't make things more tense... If the negotiation can only succeed if the character succeeds at his 'play instrument check' (and since you've been vague as to the amount of bonus - though if I didn't assume you were always lying I would think that it was +1) it doesn't really make the play instrument roll 'tense' - it just adds two points of failure... And if the character can't fail his roll (which, since you're apparently not playing D&D I have no idea whether that is or is not possible) then there is no tension as a result of this... Since you've implied (though - again, you were probably lying) that they'll usually be successful, I don't imagine it is too tense - most likely it seems that they get a bonus that they probably didn't need. Assuming that they COULD succeed without the bonus, and the bonus is +1, 5% of the time (assuming you're rolling a d20) the check actually matters - when they fail by 1. If they succeeded without the bonus, then the music doesn't matter; if they failed by more than 1 the bonus from the music doesn't matter. Over the course of many such 'negotiations', it might make a difference, but not enough to create tension.

So, if you want to talk about the rule based solely on your justification I quoted, I think your rule fails. I think your players are smart enough that they don't feel any extra tension.

Respond.

[momothefiddler]

It is so amazingly kind of you to, when you move your goalposts, helpfully point out the holes where they used to be.

Actually I take that back. "playing versions of D&D with these rules", while I originally read it to mean "using the rules I wrote while playing versions of D&D" could also mean "playing versions of D&D that have aid another, Inspire Confidence, etc.", which may be a valid point (I have minimal knowledge of D&D outside 3.5 and 4, and not fantastic knowledge of either of those, so I don't know).

So I retract my claim in this one instance that you've shifted your goalposts. My apologies.

[Zak S]

Why do you think that adding more rolls necessarily adds tension?.

I think adding a roll in the place the rule adds it adds tension because I've observed it many times. So have my players. If you doubt me: ask them. They're quite accessible and reachable.

Let's be clear: you won't ask them. Nobody here ever responds when I call their bluff or ask them for evidence.

[Ancient History]

Why do you think that adding more rolls necessarily adds tension?.

I think adding a roll in the place the rule adds it adds tension because I've observed it many times. So have my players. If you doubt me: ask them. They're quite accessible and reachable.

Let's be clear: you won't ask them. Nobody here ever responds when I call their bluff or ask them for evidence.

Except, y'know, everytime I've done it. Which you then ignore or try to misconstrue. 'cause you're inherently dishonest.

[Kaelik]

Don't worry about it. Let me summarize Zak S's claim for you, and I'll see if you can spot the flaw:

"How could you possibly assume that someone who created a site called DNDX after 2000 is plaything the the edition that sold the most and is still played the most. Isn't it possible they are playing an edition that is way less popular and has like 6 active groups in the universe and they just put dnd in the title to mislead people?"

Of course, as a further note, I would point out that Phonelobster is correct, that Zak S does not play earlier editions of D&D either, because as he specifically told us, he doesn't play D&D, he plays a loose collection of rules combined from four editions of D&D and whatever he pulls out of his ass. In the 30 page monstrosity, he actually told us that it was offensive for us to assume he played D&D because he really doesn't. So PL is of course correct that what Prak should have assumed is that Zak S was lying, because that is in fact what Zak S is doing.

[nockermensch]

Oh my god did you actually not know there were other editions of d&d before 3rd?

Why not be honest you lying shit bag Justin Bieber.

You don't actually play those earlier editions either now do you?

Of course I do.
What insane universe are you people from?

This is a character sheet from your game, it seems. Most abilities and skills' names look like like 3.X to me (a few others look like you do some extensive house-ruling too, which in itself is not bad).

This is you playing RPG (possibly not the above campaign):

The book with the guy in first plane is from 3.Xe.

[Stubbazubba]

Why do you think that adding more rolls necessarily adds tension?.

I think adding a roll in the place the rule adds it adds tension because I've observed it many times. So have my players. If you doubt me: ask them. They're quite accessible and reachable.

Let's be clear: you won't ask them. Nobody here ever responds when I call their bluff or ask them for evidence.

Wow, serious? OK, go ask my players, who don't think that's the case. In fact, between the entire Den and your little band, I'll bet we can find more players on our side than yours. Call a bluff, please.

Fine, who are your current players? Let's see what they say. Your regular players who have been doing this for a while. Mandy, Caroline, Sabine? Anyone else?

Edit:

Wait, so you're telling me you had no reason whatsoever to believe that your rule would add tension, you just wrote it down in a fever dream, and it magically added a bunch of tension right in the right spot for your group, huh? Was there any basis for writing this rule before you wrote it?

[deaddmwalking]

In case anyone cares, what Zak S. previously said on the topic was:

We don't use much in the way of baseline. Spells, saves and to-hit and bonuses for sunday come out of 3.5 mostly (heavily modified) and spells, saves and to hit for monday come out of AD&D mostly (heavily modified), but everything is house-ruled as it comes up or is requested and comes from all over the place.

But the smart thing to do when confused about a rule is ask and the dumb thing to do is to pretend that (despite the fact I run D&D all the time) I am creating an imaginary game to fuck with you.

Of course, none of that is actually relevant. Zak S. was describing a rule on his blog that was clearly inferior to existing rules that achieve his stated aim in better and more genre appropriate ways, but did not consider existing rules (from other versions of D&D) with which he should at least be passingly familiar with (since he uses chunks of these games).

So, no, I wasn't specifically assuming he used anything like 3.x - I understood he was using a 'roll under'... I did interpret his comment to mean 'I'm not playing D&D' instead of 'I'm not playing a version of D&D with those rules'.

For those of you without access to the 2nd edition Player's Handbook, the following section from page 55 is relevant:

The DM can raise or lower a character's chance of success if the situation calls for it. Factors that can affect a proficiency check include availability and quality of tools, quality of raw material used, time spent doing the job, difficulty of the job, and how familiar the character is with the task....

When two proficient characters work together on the same task, the highest ability score is used (the one with the greatest chance of success). Furthermore, a +1 bonus is added for the other character's assistance. The bonus can never be more than +1, as having too many assistants is sometimes worse than having none.

That strikes me as very similar to the 3.x rules, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Cyberzombie]

Of course the rules aren't going to be perfect. But that still doesn't excuse passively accepting shitty design.

We all passively accept shitty design. Just by buying games like Shadowrun or D&D, we've all actively supported shitty design. If you own or have played any RPG at all, yeah you've supported and accepted shitty design. As RPG players we have to, because there is no non-shitty alternative. If there was the perfect game, we'd all be playing it already.

As for designing rules to account for failure, that's a good thing. There's a reason real life things like parachutes and elevators have backup systems in place, in case the primary system fails. It's not admitting you're a terrible engineer to install a backup system. Installing fail-safes is smart design.

So absolutely tell your DM that if he sees a problem forming, he should try to fix it, instead of sitting there like a broken machine while it takes the entire game down with it.

[Zak S]

Why not be honest you lying shit bag Justin Bieber.

You don't actually play those earlier editions either now do you?

Of course I do.
What insane universe are you people from?

This is a character sheet from your game, it seems. Most abilities and skills' names look like like 3.X to me (a few others look like you do some extensive house-ruling too, which in itself is not bad).

This is you playing RPG (possibly not the above campaign):

The book with the guy in first plane is from 3.Xe.

Did I say I play only 3.5?

Did I say I play 3.5 unhacked and with all the rules dipshit mentioned (I don't).

FYI all the mechanics DSMatticus or whoever listed are mechanics we don't use. Even when playing 3.5.

You guys routinely claim to be so smart and conscientious you can second-guess not only me but professional game designers who work for WOTc and you can't even get tiny shit like this right?

[Aryxbez]

I would hope you recognized that Mistborn had labeled reasons to your behavior, opposed to implication of ignoring them. Otherwise if the habit of silently ignoring is a style to come, I would come to question if you perhaps argue dishonestly (I assume doing unwritten den rule of silently not addressing something that proved you wrong/otherwise as conceding to that point). Mainly, I find people ignore stuff pertains to something they said too often, and dislike it should it be relevant (Mistborn had this habit too).

I'd be happy to just get a designer who writes a game that lets you do fun stuff and has some sound math behind it that doesn't break. I'm not expecting the avatar of absolute perfection to come out of a low-paying RPG writing job.

By Sanguine, would you stop making that goddamn point, nobody assumes DMs ="Rules Robots" (parody of us at best), nobody assumes a game must be perfect, and fact RPG's haven't improved over the decades they exist is easily inexcusable. So yeah, stop making a point nobody believes to be true, except you apparently. Unless you have evidence of this in the past, which I would request some quotes (As an aside, I was tempted to throw a stream of accurate insults to your person, but this sounds better).

Well no. The roll represents how well you played the instrument, not if it was appropriate or if it should help you. It doesn't matter how high you roll on a diplomacy check to move a boulder aside that's blocking your path.

Part of a narrative explanation as to why that roll went well can be explained in outside modifiers like that as well. Example of haggling with aid of song is a minor situation it's doubtful a given DM has a scenario in mind. So, in a game absent of specific social system, pieces to those success can be owed to situations mentioned in narrative, or can just say "you talk just THAT good" as well, if low on BSing. As for the Example, there could very well be a context which you're allowed to talk to a boulder. Maybe you have some "talk with nature/rocks/objects" like ability/spell, maybe it's a elemental corpse you can revive (normally not possible I know). Hell, your orartory is SO stunning, the god of words allows the rock to be moved. I think that's kinda the point, things you want to do in a given situation can be justified, and needn't harm the theme(s) of the game (might be the opposite even).

I don't know about you though, but that's not the goal in most games.

You mean the Grognardium fests that are naught but a comedy of errors? A D&D "Cartoon" if you will, where in such a game, doing crazy things that work is somehow against what most of its fans are into anyway?

Course, like was said before, in this world (the gameworld where guitars =social bonuses), it's apparently an accepted social convention to in fact play it while negotiating in court, for a car, or any other situation could probably justify it. Course yeah, if in the end, it's somehow disruptive to the group, then the player would likely make some concession, like with any rule, but that's an aside.

So absolutely tell your DM that if he sees a problem forming, he should try to fix it, instead of sitting there like a broken machine while it takes the entire game down with it.

While a fair point, any issue in a group should be solved by the group. However, it's generally been used as an excuse (Like BESM manifesto) for RPG designers to weasel out of them writing rules worse than MTP...that we paid money & time for (with increasing prices of books, the jank only rises).

[Zak S]

Wow, serious? OK, go ask my players, who don't think that's the case.

See if you can follow this:

That's why your rules are for your game and your GMing style and your group.

And my separate rules are for my game and my GMing style and my groups.

In fact, between the entire Den and your little band, I'll bet we can find more players on our side than yours. Call a bluff, please.

Since when is it a vote? I'm allowed to make left-handed scissors for left handed people. The fact that right-handed people outnumber them is irrelevant.

A rule fails if it fails its target audience, not if it fails a forum of lonely trolling rules lawyers.

Fine, who are your current players? Let's see what they say. Your regular players who have been doing this for a while. Mandy, Caroline, Sabine? Anyone else?

Man you suck at this. Again: if you want to prove you're smarter & more conscientious about rules than me, prove you can do some basic research.

Wait, so you're telling me you had no reason whatsoever to believe that your rule would add tension, you just wrote it down in a fever dream, and it magically added a bunch of tension right in the right spot for your group, huh? Was there any basis for writing this rule before you wrote it?

Was there a basis before I wrote it? In Pendragon, FASERIP and Call of Cthulhu I noticed that when the dice decide whether players are good or bad at things they do incidentally (like cook a thing or bake a thing or sing a thing) everyone gets excited and pays attention and there's a feeling I'd describe as "tension" surrounding the roll. And there's even more when there's some stake associated with the roll (even if it's small). So I ported it to my hack of D&D, which had no other mechanism for doing this before I wrote the rule.