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: 7694887" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>They weren't navigating a desert looking for water. They were navigating a desert looking for ruined tower of Abor-Alz. And they found it. That is success. It happens that they were also expecting to find fresh water there. They didn't. That is a complication, one that in a different circumstance could probably be resolved by casting a spell like 'Purify Food and Drink' or 'Create Water' or an Alchemy skill check to create an antidote or distill pure water from the polluted source. Failure would have been not finding the ruined tower of Abor-Alz. </p><p></p><p>If in fact the orientation check was to find fresh water, then success would have been finding fresh water but not the ruined tower of Abor-Alz, since in that circumstances any fresh water would do. But finding fresh water, while helpful, was not the party's primary goal which was to get to the tower. And it's clear that getting to the tower was at least a partial success, since they were able to continue their plan having only had to spend a few game resources. Whether this resource was Forte or Spell Slots doesn't really matter, they still enjoyed at least partial success by at least getting to the tower. </p><p></p><p>The shear potential dysfunctionality of an orienteering check determining whether water is fresh or not, we'll leave to another time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's less than perfect success, but again, it's not complete failure since the primary goal of reaching the tower was in fact achieved. They got what they wanted, but with complications.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is functionally no different than getting to a waterhole and finding it polluted - both are 'success with complications' to an equal degree and both are 'partial success' to an equal degree. In either case, they have to deal with a new complication. In some cases, dealing with a polluted water hole might require spending fewer party resources or be easier to accomplish than dealing with a waterhole guarded by an enemy. We can't necessarily say one is a higher degree of failure than another (except to the extent that the DM is metagaming against the party using his knowledge of party resources).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. What was key to the orienteering check was getting where you were going. That again seems obvious. If in fact merely 'getting water' was the main goal at stake, play would have been more seriously disrupted than it was and would have involved more trouble than marking off a bit of Forte. Also, getting water could have been separated out as a separate roll, as someone could have made the equivalent of a Survival check to find a nearby water source other than the pool that happened to be where they were going. ("While we are on our journey, I want to keep an eye out for geological formations that might indicate hidden or subsurface pools of water. If we get the chance, I want to stop and collect additional water.")</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not even sure how to categorize that, except to say that's a very good example of why I don't like open ended GM intervention. Whether that was success with complications or a fumble, depends very much on the system in question and the perversity of the DM regarding how he views his job as DM. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't see how you can draw that as a bright line. If the adverse attention is of a more powerful and dangerous being, is that success with complications or a fumble? If the adverse attention is of a less dangerous being, is that not partial success? In general, the terms 'partial success' and 'success with complications' are synonymous, and even when we can distinguish them it is only when all counterfactuals are known and prespecified and the results are therefore not open ended. Otherwise, telling one apart is a matter of opinion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7694887, member: 4937"] They weren't navigating a desert looking for water. They were navigating a desert looking for ruined tower of Abor-Alz. And they found it. That is success. It happens that they were also expecting to find fresh water there. They didn't. That is a complication, one that in a different circumstance could probably be resolved by casting a spell like 'Purify Food and Drink' or 'Create Water' or an Alchemy skill check to create an antidote or distill pure water from the polluted source. Failure would have been not finding the ruined tower of Abor-Alz. If in fact the orientation check was to find fresh water, then success would have been finding fresh water but not the ruined tower of Abor-Alz, since in that circumstances any fresh water would do. But finding fresh water, while helpful, was not the party's primary goal which was to get to the tower. And it's clear that getting to the tower was at least a partial success, since they were able to continue their plan having only had to spend a few game resources. Whether this resource was Forte or Spell Slots doesn't really matter, they still enjoyed at least partial success by at least getting to the tower. The shear potential dysfunctionality of an orienteering check determining whether water is fresh or not, we'll leave to another time. It's less than perfect success, but again, it's not complete failure since the primary goal of reaching the tower was in fact achieved. They got what they wanted, but with complications. This is functionally no different than getting to a waterhole and finding it polluted - both are 'success with complications' to an equal degree and both are 'partial success' to an equal degree. In either case, they have to deal with a new complication. In some cases, dealing with a polluted water hole might require spending fewer party resources or be easier to accomplish than dealing with a waterhole guarded by an enemy. We can't necessarily say one is a higher degree of failure than another (except to the extent that the DM is metagaming against the party using his knowledge of party resources). No. What was key to the orienteering check was getting where you were going. That again seems obvious. If in fact merely 'getting water' was the main goal at stake, play would have been more seriously disrupted than it was and would have involved more trouble than marking off a bit of Forte. Also, getting water could have been separated out as a separate roll, as someone could have made the equivalent of a Survival check to find a nearby water source other than the pool that happened to be where they were going. ("While we are on our journey, I want to keep an eye out for geological formations that might indicate hidden or subsurface pools of water. If we get the chance, I want to stop and collect additional water.") I'm not even sure how to categorize that, except to say that's a very good example of why I don't like open ended GM intervention. Whether that was success with complications or a fumble, depends very much on the system in question and the perversity of the DM regarding how he views his job as DM. I don't see how you can draw that as a bright line. If the adverse attention is of a more powerful and dangerous being, is that success with complications or a fumble? If the adverse attention is of a less dangerous being, is that not partial success? In general, the terms 'partial success' and 'success with complications' are synonymous, and even when we can distinguish them it is only when all counterfactuals are known and prespecified and the results are therefore not open ended. Otherwise, telling one apart is a matter of opinion. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
Top