Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8198340" data-attributes="member: 6802765">While I agree that, in the abstract, calling for a check does not add tension, I would note that the 80' climb in the OP is arguably already tense, with the tension created by the potential consequences of falling (pain, using up healing resources/time, death, plus the need to either face the risk again or change the plan). (I wouldn't personally call for a check for 80' because I think the use of a rope successfully reduced the difficulty of the task to auto-success: the PC chose an approach that obviated the risk, and the tension is resolved. Go PCs!) But adding an environmental factor like high wind as a justification to call for a check doesn't add tension either, because it doesn't change the stakes--it just makes it harder for the PCs to find an approach to resolve the inherent tension without a check.While the above holds true for DM-presented obstacles, I think the decision whether or not to call for a check can add tension in a player-driven scene when the PCs are making strategic choices. For example, if the PCs are deciding between multiple routes to approach an encampment they plan to assault, if none of the routes are riskier than the others, then there is no tension in just picking whatever approach the PCs think will give them the most favorable odds in the ensuing combat. By contrast, if, say, one of the approaches would let the PCs take the high ground, but requires a risky climb with a chance of failure, there is tension in the choice of routes. The amount of tension in the choice of route isn't really affected by whether the need for a check comes from the height of the climb itself or from high wind.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8198340, member: 6802765"] While I agree that, in the abstract, calling for a check does not add tension, I would note that the 80' climb in the OP is arguably [I]already tense[/I], with the tension created by the potential consequences of falling (pain, using up healing resources/time, death, plus the need to either face the risk again or change the plan). (I wouldn't personally call for a check for 80' because I think the use of a rope successfully reduced the difficulty of the task to auto-success: the PC chose an approach that obviated the risk, and the tension is resolved. Go PCs!) But adding an environmental factor like high wind as a justification to call for a check doesn't add tension either, because it doesn't change the stakes--it just makes it harder for the PCs to find an approach to resolve the inherent tension without a check. While the above holds true for DM-presented obstacles, I think the decision whether or not to call for a check [I]can[/I] add tension in a player-driven scene when the PCs are making strategic choices. For example, if the PCs are deciding between multiple routes to approach an encampment they plan to assault, if none of the routes are riskier than the others, then there is no tension in just picking whatever approach the PCs think will give them the most favorable odds in the ensuing combat. By contrast, if, say, one of the approaches would let the PCs take the high ground, but requires a risky climb with a chance of failure, there is tension in the choice of routes. The amount of tension in the choice of route isn't really affected by whether the need for a check comes from the height of the climb itself or from high wind. [/QUOTE]

Verification