Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 9630347" data-attributes="member: 467">A friend of mine shared <a href="https://ominosity.wordpress.com/2025/04/07/partial-success-isnt-as-good-as-it-could-be/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJhPy1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHjuDF9b_JHSmtL-F2emcXglyt7Sz_HkmKZ_viGR_xbJQ9DNe6jjTusG1l9TI_aem_FWPLp1IHyr-NHkmNRhtoKQ" target="_blank">this blog post</a> with me and I though it would make for an interesting topic here.I don't really buy the core of the argument that all you have to do to make binary results interesting is to add more rolls. That makes things tedious. In the drive, shoot and resist psychic attack example, the order of those things will matter.Note that I am not saying that &quot;partial successes&quot; are easy to come up with on the fly. It can be a real pain depending on the task -- but that is why most PbtA and FitD games put some of that work on the players, too.What works for me with games like D&amp;D is instead of setting DCs for binary results, is I know the DC scale (8-12-16-20-24) well enough to interpret the results of a check on the fly. The specific situation will determine whether that 8 means &quot;success at a cost&quot; or &quot;limited success&quot; or what.What do you think? Do you prefer binary success or multiple levels of success? Why? Do you agree with the author's idea that you can make binary success more interesting by making checks more complex?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 9630347, member: 467"] A friend of mine shared [URL='https://ominosity.wordpress.com/2025/04/07/partial-success-isnt-as-good-as-it-could-be/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJhPy1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHjuDF9b_JHSmtL-F2emcXglyt7Sz_HkmKZ_viGR_xbJQ9DNe6jjTusG1l9TI_aem_FWPLp1IHyr-NHkmNRhtoKQ']this blog post[/URL] with me and I though it would make for an interesting topic here. I don't really buy the core of the argument that all you have to do to make binary results interesting is to add more rolls. That makes things tedious. In the drive, shoot and resist psychic attack example, the order of those things will matter. Note that I am not saying that "partial successes" are easy to come up with on the fly. It can be a real pain depending on the task -- but that is why most PbtA and FitD games put some of that work on the players, too. What works for me with games like D&D is instead of setting DCs for binary results, is I know the DC scale (8-12-16-20-24) well enough to interpret the results of a check on the fly. The specific situation will determine whether that 8 means "success at a cost" or "limited success" or what. What do you think? Do you prefer binary success or multiple levels of success? Why? Do you agree with the author's idea that you can make binary success more interesting by making checks more complex? [/QUOTE]

Verification