Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8135900" data-attributes="member: 16814">The part you had quoted had moved on from the combat example, so no jerkiness needed.  The fact is that if you view combat as the extended resolution mechanic it is, then the success with cost becomes absolutely apparent -- you can succeed outright, defeating your opponents without expending any additional resources (unlikely), you can defeat your opponents while suffering various levels of resource expenditure from mild to severe, and you can be defeated, either fleeing or being incapacitated or killed.  It's only when you start to try to sever the individual actions as somehow independent of the whole that you get into the idea that combat isn't a success with cost mechanic but instead argue that attack rolls are fail/succeed/succeed wildly.  Trying to defeat the argument about success with cost by doing this kind of analysis is exactly the kind of internalized justifications I was talking about.  Combat in 5e is not the attack roll, it's the whole thing from pre-initiative through resolution, and it's absolutely chock-full of costs to success.But, again, to move on from combat, there's also the common approach to running D&D where the GM undermines player successes that thwart the desired or expected story.  Things like having a module that hard codes NPC behavior and ignoring PC successes to enforce this, or the gang example from above, these are ways the GMs, even in good faith, act to complicate the PC's lives because the binary nature of the D&D check system is, at least sometimes, unfulfilling.</blockquote>

Verification