Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarkB" data-source="post: 7796694" data-attributes="member: 40176">So, just as a general note, the approach you're looking for seems very reminiscent of the concept behind most Powered By The Apocalypse games, in which the DM basically never rolls dice, and the players' rolls effectively determine the success or failure of both their own actions and those of their opposition.I'm not suggesting that you go play those games instead, but I would suggest that it may be worth your time to take a closer look at some of those systems, and see how they handle those mechanics. I'm currently running a Scum and Villainy campaign, and the system has some useful dials for setting the outcome of both success and failure of checks.That just feels the wrong way around. I know D&D's checks are generally binary, but as a player I'd dislike being penalised more for a near-miss than a complete failure.It also doesn't feel like fully embracing the system you're proposing. If there are meaningful consequences for failure, then there shouldn't be a "nothing gained, nothing lost" middle ground - the middle ground is choosing not to make the roll.This may be one of those "choose which you like the least" situations. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Meaningful consequences for failure</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rolls in the open</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Not roleplaying known-to-be-false information</li> </ul>Choose any two.</blockquote>