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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8136762" data-attributes="member: 5142">Kinda, but still baffling because, as I see it, you still got what you wanted. If I only measured "success" by avoiding unwanted consequences, then every combat in D&D would be a failure because it often involves a loss of HP, narrative complications, or other resources. So why is it partial failure and not complicated success? Much as [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] says, a fight will still often require that you expend resources to succeed: e.g., HP, spells, abilities, etc. A complicated success often operates in this vein. You may have to spend resources to achieve your goals. That's the point. For example, if I was writing a college paper and it required me to "pull an all-nighter" (likely a 7-9), then I successfully wrote that paper. I may experience consequences (e.g., loss of sleep) but I succeeded. I don't think I ever considered my success in pulling an all-nighter as a "partial failure." These seems like you are circularly defining success only as the optimum outcome rather than completion of the intended goal: e.g., to hit, to cast, etc. The consequence of failure is not making the jump at all. You made the jump. You're still alive. How is that failure? If the difference is death or bruised ribs, which is actually failure? I don't think, for example, when we watch "success with complication" transpire on TV or movies that we necessarily think, "Oh, man. The protagonist is a failure because they made it across the chasm with a bruised ribs or attracting the guards." We generally think, IME, more along the lines of "Wow. They're lucky to have made the jump at all."</blockquote>

Verification