Why limit the number of boon/bane dice?

[ShawnDriscoll]

I agree with you. I was just saying in general about the dice.

 

[-Daniel-]

I agree with you. I was just saying in general about the dice.

Ah then I misread your comment. Sorry.

 

[TrippyHippy]

When the roll range is narrowed, the question then is why roll? The referee just says what the Effect is without needing a roll.

There's nothing granular about your idea. Just askewed bell curves is all. Use +/- DMs for granularity.

Then why bother with the mechanic at all? All you are doing here is presenting a new 'toy' to players, and then telling them they can't play with it. If everything is going to boil back to +/-DMs (which apparently weren't going to be used in this ruleset) then why have an extra level of confusion?

In playtesting the group I had enjoyed rolling boon/bane dice (to answer your first point), and there is always a chance of rolling low, but if you are now arguing it's not about playtesting - it's just about your own preference of game design - then I reject boon/bane in their entirety. If they are an all or nothing bonus, then I choose nothing because their implementation always comes back to the same question around the game table: 'why can't you roll more than one?'. If the answer is just an arbitrary 'that is what the rules say' then it's a bad rule and that is bad game design.