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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8324903" data-attributes="member: 71699">Good. We are agreed then that in vanilla-PHB, failing an ability check comes with a consequence. That's why we called for a check in the first place.My word, but this is splitting hairs. Yes, if your rope could be consumed or will become unavailable for several sessions, then it can become a cost as well as a requirement.Solid criticism. What that points to is that it is correct to have drawbacks on odds for both failure and success. Else all that happens is we dilute the cost of failure (roughly halving the wager).Something is at stake. I mean, one does not say in gambling that nothing is at stake just because I might not lose. Roughly, the method can be said to halve the wager. Where loss on a fail was guaranteed, now it is guaranteed half the time. On the other hand, sometimes I now pay a price with success. There is no abandoning of stakes, only a rearrangement of how they fall.I understand that coming to this from vanilla-PHB, one feels like "success with a cost" isn't "failing forward" even though the outcomes are isomorphic. And that we're used to success being unadorned succes - I got what I wanted, no drawbacks - and failure to always have a drawback. In intent, that is what the DMG options do. "Fail" by 5 or less? No drawback. "Fail" by 2 or less? Actually that's a success, but here's a drawback. The list of outcomes implementing the DMG options puts on offer, is the same as the list of outcomes with this method. Even while the methods and probabilities differ.I don't dismiss the importance of semantics, but in designing mechanics I am thinking about what the mechanic genuinely does. Success at a cost == success at a cost even if in the past we might have called that a "failure" that turns into a success with a cost.</blockquote>

Verification