Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Actual play: my first "social only" session
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5656188" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I think in the great majority of cases you can stick with the N success before 3 fails basic structure, but sometimes you'll elaborate on that substantially or subvert it in some fashion. </p><p></p><p>I would just say that 3 failures should indicate a narrative path that leads to failure. People usually seem to grapple with the actual SC system's evil shadow twin, the 'pile of rolls system', which is a sort of totally degenerated SC where you just roll checks until you pile up what you need or fail with no real narrative structure and thus usually no real rationale for what happens. In a few fairly trivial SCs you can do that and it works OK, but it isn't really the way you would want to run most SCs.</p><p></p><p>When the SC has a narrative and the PCs hit that third failure it would be narratively explained as an end-point of the challenge. If a player has some great idea for salvaging the situation then it could be handled as a check to erase a failure or it could simply be something that happens beyond the scope of the SC. In the later case the party is presumably suffering failure consequences, but they could mitigate them if their plan is good enough. That might effectively turn failure into success, or at least 'not failure'. </p><p></p><p>I think the thing is many people somehow expect a system that provides a detailed process for things outside of combat, but there is just never going to be such a thing in reality as there are too many radically different 'out of combat' things. You could build a number of different systems if you can identify classes of challenges that meaningfully use the same rules. OTOH these can turn into straightjackets too, and probably won't cover all cases adequately. SC was just an attempt to say "OK, here are a few things that can be reused in a lot of situations" It won't do everything, but it also won't get in the way much because you can just change any part of it as you see fit and not have to feel like "why am I not using the social combat system here." or somesuch.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5656188, member: 82106"] I think in the great majority of cases you can stick with the N success before 3 fails basic structure, but sometimes you'll elaborate on that substantially or subvert it in some fashion. I would just say that 3 failures should indicate a narrative path that leads to failure. People usually seem to grapple with the actual SC system's evil shadow twin, the 'pile of rolls system', which is a sort of totally degenerated SC where you just roll checks until you pile up what you need or fail with no real narrative structure and thus usually no real rationale for what happens. In a few fairly trivial SCs you can do that and it works OK, but it isn't really the way you would want to run most SCs. When the SC has a narrative and the PCs hit that third failure it would be narratively explained as an end-point of the challenge. If a player has some great idea for salvaging the situation then it could be handled as a check to erase a failure or it could simply be something that happens beyond the scope of the SC. In the later case the party is presumably suffering failure consequences, but they could mitigate them if their plan is good enough. That might effectively turn failure into success, or at least 'not failure'. I think the thing is many people somehow expect a system that provides a detailed process for things outside of combat, but there is just never going to be such a thing in reality as there are too many radically different 'out of combat' things. You could build a number of different systems if you can identify classes of challenges that meaningfully use the same rules. OTOH these can turn into straightjackets too, and probably won't cover all cases adequately. SC was just an attempt to say "OK, here are a few things that can be reused in a lot of situations" It won't do everything, but it also won't get in the way much because you can just change any part of it as you see fit and not have to feel like "why am I not using the social combat system here." or somesuch. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Actual play: my first "social only" session
Top