Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TallIan" data-source="post: 7333143" data-attributes="member: 6853819">I tend to focus more on the consequences of failure than the probabilities of success.&nbsp; Unless there is a specific and time dependent result of failure I will usually assume success and use the roll as an indicator of the degree of failure/success, even if that is purely descriptive.eg. Picking a lock of DC 10, without guards on the door.&nbsp; If the player rolls a 8, I'll just say, &quot;You struggle with the lock for a minute, scraping your knuckles a little, but you eventually get it open.&quot;&nbsp; If the player rolls really low, say 2, I might have his lock picks bend and become harder to use.Picking a lock of DC 10, with guards on the door however, becomes more dangerous and a slight failure (roll 8) might cause some noise that could alert the guards.&nbsp; A really low roll (like a 2) would be a failure, as the PC's now have to explore another option - like breaking down the door.Its only if they PC's are trying to escape while in initiative, that I would really worry about the difference between rolling just below the DC and passing, since simply describing that &quot;it takes longer&quot; doesn't really work. I find this approach improves the flow of a session as there is nothing more irritating than spending 15 minutes trying to get through a door that has nothing on the other side worth spending 15 minutes on, because the rogue player rolled a bunch of ones in a row.For something like knowledge checks, I would set various DC's to give progressively more information; &quot;You see a painting of a man on a horse in front of some soldiers.&quot;; &quot;You see a painting of the battle of Coldwater Rock.&quot;; &quot;You see a painting of Lord Rendale after he defeated the invading armies of Grell at Coldwater Rock.&nbsp; He was wounded in the battle and never fully recovered, unable to fight he lived the rest of his life in solitude and declining fame contributing to his families fall from power.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TallIan, post: 7333143, member: 6853819"] I tend to focus more on the consequences of failure than the probabilities of success. Unless there is a specific and time dependent result of failure I will usually assume success and use the roll as an indicator of the degree of failure/success, even if that is purely descriptive. eg. Picking a lock of DC 10, without guards on the door. If the player rolls a 8, I'll just say, "You struggle with the lock for a minute, scraping your knuckles a little, but you eventually get it open." If the player rolls really low, say 2, I might have his lock picks bend and become harder to use. Picking a lock of DC 10, with guards on the door however, becomes more dangerous and a slight failure (roll 8) might cause some noise that could alert the guards. A really low roll (like a 2) would be a failure, as the PC's now have to explore another option - like breaking down the door. Its only if they PC's are trying to escape while in initiative, that I would really worry about the difference between rolling just below the DC and passing, since simply describing that "it takes longer" doesn't really work. I find this approach improves the flow of a session as there is nothing more irritating than spending 15 minutes trying to get through a door that has nothing on the other side worth spending 15 minutes on, because the rogue player rolled a bunch of ones in a row. For something like knowledge checks, I would set various DC's to give progressively more information; "You see a painting of a man on a horse in front of some soldiers."; "You see a painting of the battle of Coldwater Rock."; "You see a painting of Lord Rendale after he defeated the invading armies of Grell at Coldwater Rock. He was wounded in the battle and never fully recovered, unable to fight he lived the rest of his life in solitude and declining fame contributing to his families fall from power." [/QUOTE]

Verification