NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7797266" data-attributes="member: 4937">I've mostly dropped out of this thread, but this seems like a good opportunity to ask, "What is the purpose of the thread?"  Another poster in the thread suggested that there was a disconnect in the original post between what you wrote and your actual intended purpose. I don't know how much you agree with that, but it would be nice to get a real clarification.It seems to me that you have proposed a methodology for play which requires a meaningful consequence for failure before you roll. You've then noted that this methodology has a number of significant challenges and incoherencies, some of which I think deserve more attention. For example, why is it only the consequence of failure that determines if a roll is meaningful? If a roll has a consequence of failure, but no meaningful consequence of success is that also a bad roll? Do these principles apply to the NPCs? Do these principles override the logical consequences of success or failure in the fiction? That is to say, is the principle more important than the fiction itself, such that logically there shouldn't be a meaningful consequence of failure, nonetheless to adhere to the principle we invent a consequence of failure or else don't allow the roll? If we don't allow the roll, does that mean that the PC's automatically succeed in any situation where there is a meaningful consequence of success but not a meaningful consequence of failure, or do they automatically fail in those situations? Most of all, in your original post you seemed to focus on the challenge you were facing in applying this methodology rigorously when it was not supported by the fictional scenarios.You seem to want applied answers to practical situations that frequently occur in play, but you want those applied answers without giving any clear description of the theoretical basis of your methodology. You addressed other posters that play according to your methodology. It's not clear who those posters are or whether your methodology and your interpretations are unique. I think everyone in this thread agrees with you that it is far better play if a roll is meaningful. There is disagreement about whether the only rolls that are meaningful are the ones you describe. There is disagreement over whether it matters if some rolls are meaningless. We all agree that too much time spent on meaningless rolls is bad. We seem to disagree over how much ought to be sacrificed in ease of play, fictional positioning, and time trying to avoid those rolls.So far my answer to you has amounted to, prepare good scenarios and pace your session so that the most focus is on the stuff that has meaningful consequences. Don't let slavish adherence to a principle disrupt the game, nor think you are doing it wrong when you decide to not slavishly adhere to principle and just make an obvious ruling to keep the game flowing. You think you are doing it wrong, but actually you are doing it right.This hasn't made you happy, as it ought to have done. So if you want a better answer, you're going to have to make it clear what the question is.</blockquote>

Verification