Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Agamon" data-source="post: 6672841" data-attributes="member: 184">That's fair.&nbsp; It's not cool for anyone to think everyone else should play the exact same way they do.It's not pass/fail, it's more of a pass/don't try/fail with consequences.A bashing down the door example:(DM): The door ahead of you appears to be barred form the other side.(PC): I want to bash down the door.(DM): To your hulking barbarian, that certainly looks like it would be possible.&nbsp; Do you care if you make a lot of noise knocking it down?(PC): Good point, I'll try and do it in one go and make as little noise as I can.(DM): Okay, make a check with DC X, if you pass, you'll make a bit of unavoidable noise, but it'll open with one shove.&nbsp; If you fail, you'll get the door open eventually, but it will take a few attempts and make a whole lot of noise, alerting anyone in the area.&nbsp; At this point, the PC can change his mind.&nbsp; The door won't open, but there's no chance at alerting the area, either.&nbsp; Side note, there's some fail forward in that example, which I'm a big fan of.&nbsp; I like the idea that a big beefy PC can bust down a wooded door, if determined; the check is more about how effective they are at doing what they do best.Also, knowing the stakes makes it less of a &quot;gotcha&quot; game.&nbsp; Some people don't like GM fiat because of that aspect, but this removes that entirely.&nbsp; The PCs are pros in a life and death profession.&nbsp; Being able to assess a situation makes perfect sense to me.It's not square peg, round hole.&nbsp; It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I, for one, can say that this approach works quite well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Agamon, post: 6672841, member: 184"] That's fair. It's not cool for anyone to think everyone else should play the exact same way they do. It's not pass/fail, it's more of a pass/don't try/fail with consequences. A bashing down the door example: (DM): The door ahead of you appears to be barred form the other side. (PC): I want to bash down the door. (DM): To your hulking barbarian, that certainly looks like it would be possible. Do you care if you make a lot of noise knocking it down? (PC): Good point, I'll try and do it in one go and make as little noise as I can. (DM): Okay, make a check with DC X, if you pass, you'll make a bit of unavoidable noise, but it'll open with one shove. If you fail, you'll get the door open eventually, but it will take a few attempts and make a whole lot of noise, alerting anyone in the area. At this point, the PC can change his mind. The door won't open, but there's no chance at alerting the area, either. Side note, there's some fail forward in that example, which I'm a big fan of. I like the idea that a big beefy PC can bust down a wooded door, if determined; the check is more about how effective they are at doing what they do best. Also, knowing the stakes makes it less of a "gotcha" game. Some people don't like GM fiat because of that aspect, but this removes that entirely. The PCs are pros in a life and death profession. Being able to assess a situation makes perfect sense to me. It's not square peg, round hole. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I, for one, can say that this approach works quite well. [/QUOTE]

Verification