Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7584512" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Have no interest in or about how you play.&quot;Success and failure is binary. &quot;Stated as such for 5e that is simply not true or at best misleading.For 5e, a GM has more than binary success/fail, do or dont for ability checks used to resolve a task.A GM can sure choose to not use those - turning it into binary. But 5e does not require it.The single most explicit example of this is in the very definition of failed ability checks themselves in the core PHB. Failing to meet the DC is allowed to be making no progress *or* making some progress with setback. So we are already past binary and that is core rule. But also, as stated before - for a scene or task different elements can have different DCs. Different results can be achieved by different rolls. Nothing requires a different roll for each DC. Nothing requires different declarations for each DC. If a GM wants that, great, but that's a simplification of his own doing. So, for example &quot;I search the room&quot; does not require the GM to now require an investigation check for every single hidden or inobvious&nbsp; thing... one check can serve the task and reveal the things there that were not as well hidden. It's just not a binary one DC pass/fail.Similarly, &quot;what do I know about the history of this battlefield&quot; does not require the player to somehow state the most secret betrayal thing in his task statement, not identify the highest DC, anymore than the &quot;I search the room&quot; so you again can wind up with one roll with different results based on how high the roll was - different amounts of info based on how high the roll is.But sure, some GMs may decide that simple binary pass/fail, no chance of &quot;some progress with setbacks&quot; all or nothing - no different degrees of known info - know everything or know nothing etc- if that's how they say&nbsp;&nbsp; it works in their games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7584512, member: 6919838"] Have no interest in or about how you play. "Success and failure is binary. " Stated as such for 5e that is simply not true or at best misleading. For 5e, a GM has more than binary success/fail, do or dont for ability checks used to resolve a task. A GM can sure choose to not use those - turning it into binary. But 5e does not require it. The single most explicit example of this is in the very definition of failed ability checks themselves in the core PHB. Failing to meet the DC is allowed to be making no progress *or* making some progress with setback. So we are already past binary and that is core rule. But also, as stated before - for a scene or task different elements can have different DCs. Different results can be achieved by different rolls. Nothing requires a different roll for each DC. Nothing requires different declarations for each DC. If a GM wants that, great, but that's a simplification of his own doing. So, for example "I search the room" does not require the GM to now require an investigation check for every single hidden or inobvious thing... one check can serve the task and reveal the things there that were not as well hidden. It's just not a binary one DC pass/fail. Similarly, "what do I know about the history of this battlefield" does not require the player to somehow state the most secret betrayal thing in his task statement, not identify the highest DC, anymore than the "I search the room" so you again can wind up with one roll with different results based on how high the roll was - different amounts of info based on how high the roll is. But sure, some GMs may decide that simple binary pass/fail, no chance of "some progress with setbacks" all or nothing - no different degrees of known info - know everything or know nothing etc- if that's how they say it works in their games. [/QUOTE]

Verification