Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7694848" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Yes, what constitutes 'partial success', 'near success', or 'success with complications' is a matter of perspective. It's like I was trying to explain about mapping movies to mechanics - you can't do it accurate because you don't know the counterfactuals. Your 'failure' form my perspective looks very much like 'success with complications'. In fact, I would argue that even from your examples, what you describe is much closer to success with complications than it is to failure. As usual, your description of your own play doesn't match the details of your play. Just like you claim to be play 'no myth' when you describe prepping myth, so now you are describing 'success with complications' as something other than what it obviously is.</p><p></p><p>For example:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now in normal procedural play, if you are making an orientation check the stakes are 'You get where you are going' or 'You don't get where you are going'. So then the check is failed, and because you are playing 'no whiff' or 'fail forward' or whatever you want to call it, instead of getting the consequence 'You don't get where you are going' (presumably they become lost and don't get to the tower of Abor-Alz) they got the consequence 'You do get to the tower of Abor-Alz, BUT there is a complication'. That is partial success. That is success with complications BY THE BLOODY @#@$ing DEFINITION. Whatever you want to call it, it's still a partial success. They failed their orientation check AND STILL GOT WHERE THEY ARE GOING. How can you not see that?</p><p></p><p>In any event, when the mechanical implementation is open ended like this, it's not possible to draw bright lines around 'partial success' or 'near success' or 'success with complications'. They all shade off into each other. When Chewy is trying to put C3P0 back together, and he puts his head on backwards, was that 'partial success', 'near success' or 'success with complications'? One DM may say one thing, and one the other, because those things are basically different terms for the same freaking thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7694848, member: 4937"] Yes, what constitutes 'partial success', 'near success', or 'success with complications' is a matter of perspective. It's like I was trying to explain about mapping movies to mechanics - you can't do it accurate because you don't know the counterfactuals. Your 'failure' form my perspective looks very much like 'success with complications'. In fact, I would argue that even from your examples, what you describe is much closer to success with complications than it is to failure. As usual, your description of your own play doesn't match the details of your play. Just like you claim to be play 'no myth' when you describe prepping myth, so now you are describing 'success with complications' as something other than what it obviously is. For example: Now in normal procedural play, if you are making an orientation check the stakes are 'You get where you are going' or 'You don't get where you are going'. So then the check is failed, and because you are playing 'no whiff' or 'fail forward' or whatever you want to call it, instead of getting the consequence 'You don't get where you are going' (presumably they become lost and don't get to the tower of Abor-Alz) they got the consequence 'You do get to the tower of Abor-Alz, BUT there is a complication'. That is partial success. That is success with complications BY THE BLOODY @#@$ing DEFINITION. Whatever you want to call it, it's still a partial success. They failed their orientation check AND STILL GOT WHERE THEY ARE GOING. How can you not see that? In any event, when the mechanical implementation is open ended like this, it's not possible to draw bright lines around 'partial success' or 'near success' or 'success with complications'. They all shade off into each other. When Chewy is trying to put C3P0 back together, and he puts his head on backwards, was that 'partial success', 'near success' or 'success with complications'? One DM may say one thing, and one the other, because those things are basically different terms for the same freaking thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
Top