Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
LOL. I see what you are getting at. But there is a difference between behavior we find frustrating and frustrating behavior being done in "bad faith". It's possible to unintentionally frustrate people. I'm pretty sure I do so quite often - unintentionally. It's another thing entirely to be frustrated by someone arguing in bad faith.
Yes, but his point was interpretation. The person being frustrated can't always tell bad faith from unintentional frustration.
We all are scratching our head on that one LOL.
Maybe he's using the rather nuanced formulation for the meaning of failure that's been used in this thread for goal and approach, that failure must have a risk or some consequence and that the status quo cannot be maintained. In that sense, obviously the check is failed, but the status quo is the same and so no "failure" by that definition.
He seems to be conflating the act of say arm wrestling, with the ability check and success at the contest. You really can't fail to engage to some degree with the act of arm wrestling, but you can absolutely fail the latter two parts of the engagement.
For example, if you and an orc are rushing for the magic ring. You roll an athletics check to see who gets it first. If you fail that check all it means is that you still don't have the magic ring. So in the context of "failure" on this thread, does that meet the criteria for a meaningful failure. If not, are we being told to never roll such opposed checks? But aren't nearly all opposed checks of the same structure?
I think the orc having the magic ring instead of the party is a meaningful consequence, yes.