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: 8324974" data-attributes="member: 71699">A substantive criticism here is a concern for stalling or protracting. I can fail to achieve what I attempted while paying no cost, so the situation is static. That is (only) where there is no up front cost.Another poster cited Progressive Failures and Rising Tension.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1st Failure: No progress</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">2nd Failure: Unable to advance without help or change.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">3rd Failure: Consequences</li> </ul>An underlying rule I have in my campaign that I had not reflected on until now, is "If a check fails, it usually can’t be reattempted until conditions change—such as with a new approach, improvement in modifiers, or increased proficiency". That is similar to 2nd Failure in Progressive Failures.Working through the example. Failing has a possible cost, which is the probability of being hit by the archers. Say they all miss? Then the outcome turned out to be static. It is worth reflecting on why we don't object to that? Is it that the chance of the situation ending static in that case seems small, so we are okay with it? If yes, then the criticism not so much leaving costs down to chance, but to too high a chance? Or if not, then what is the practical difference in outcomes that concerns us?It may be that we simply want the narrative to progress, but then nothing prevented a DM from progressing the narrative. Jay attempts to disarm the trap. They fail. The trap is not disarmed, but nothing bad happened to Jay. "What do you do now?" asks the DM. Is this really a static situation? Or just one in which the players will need to find another approach.In my DMing experience, an unadorned fail is never static: it never "does nothing". The players are just forced to think of another approach. It feels worth spelling out that if there is truly no cost - no up front cost, no consequential costs, or repeats are permitted without changing approach - then a DM shouldn't be calling for a check in the first place.What I think was left unexplained, and needed explaining, is that repeats are not envisioned to be permitted without changing approach. OP edited!</blockquote>

Verification