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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5899943" data-attributes="member: 42582">There are other ways of handling this, though - and D&D probably needs to get more creative in looking at them.For example, in BW a player who has everyone clapping and laughing earns Action/Fate-type points. To generalise - there is another dimension of mechanical reward besides having your PC succeed at the task.And in BW, also, if a player fails a die roll than the GM is encouraged to adjudicate this by reference to the player's intention rather than the PC's task. So if the idea of the letter was to win over an ally, a failed check doesn't mean that the letter actually sucked. It means (for example) that the NPC loved the letter, but already pledged alliance with an enemy of the PC. So now the game goes on - the player has to think up a way for his PC to break the alliance between the NPCs, which will then bring the letter-receiving NPC over to the PC's side.I also want to point out: see how the BW approach to resolving failure breaks down the notion that "failure is not an option". As I've already said a couple of times in this thread, while D&D sticks to a "if you fail, you lose" paradigm, then the new approach to skill checks won't do what it is supposed to, because players still won't want to take risks. You have to open up a space where risks are safe and the PC failing doesn't mean that the player lost. Then look at funky new skill mechanics that try and put fictional positioning first.</blockquote>

Verification