Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7799274" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yeah, thinking about it, I see your point.&nbsp; The goal is to sneak past the guards, so, failing any one of the checks is a fail of the goal.&nbsp; The check and the goal are separate elements - the check simply answers the &quot;how&quot; of &quot;How did you get past the guards&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp; I'm not sure I agree that all skill checks work like this though.&nbsp; Knowledge checks are pretty much indivisible from the goal - I'm trying to remember some piece of information, roll the check.&nbsp; There really isn't too much in the way of separation there.&nbsp; And, really, skill contests are somewhat separate here since there are multiple goals in play.&nbsp; The guards want to spot stuff.&nbsp; The character wants to sneak through.&nbsp; Whose goals are more important?&nbsp; After all, if I narrate a specific plan, the DM may allow me to bypass the guards without a roll.&nbsp; Can the NPC's also do the same thing?&nbsp; Seems a pretty strong advantage to PC's if not.&nbsp; OH, and no, I don't have anyone on ignore.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; But, yeah, I'm thinking that there's some serious hair splitting going on here.&nbsp; How about this example:I'm trying to hold a door shut from the zombies on the other side.&nbsp; Bog standard contest right?&nbsp; They win, the door opens, I win, the door stays shut.&nbsp; But, again, I don't stop holding the door if I fail the check.&nbsp; I'm still holding the door.&nbsp; I haven't failed the check at all.&nbsp; But, because you have separated the check from the actual actions in the game, now you have added a fail condition to skill contests - I have failed my goal.The issue with this is, it&nbsp; forces all checks to be black and white.&nbsp; Say I'm climbing a 50 foot wall.&nbsp; Now, with standard movement, it would take 4 checks to climb that wall (climb checks are half speed).&nbsp; To succeed in my goal (get to the top), I need to succeed 4 checks.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; But, my second best result is 4 straight failures.&nbsp; If I make the first three checks and fail the fourth and fall, then I take the most damage.&nbsp; The stakes rise with every check.&nbsp; But, the previous successes don't actually increase my chances of a subsequent success.&nbsp; So, my best &quot;fail&quot; is to fail 4 straight rolls.&nbsp; There is no &quot;partial success&quot; in the Goal and Method approach.&nbsp; Since any roll MUST have a fail condition.&nbsp; Which makes it a great too in some cases, but, a rather poor one in others.&nbsp; Maybe in my &quot;hold the zombie door&quot;, failing by less than 5 only lets one zombie past.&nbsp; When you remove the &quot;fail condition&quot; to the die rolls and allow for partial successes, you gain a lot more flexibility.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7799274, member: 22779"] Yeah, thinking about it, I see your point. The goal is to sneak past the guards, so, failing any one of the checks is a fail of the goal. The check and the goal are separate elements - the check simply answers the "how" of "How did you get past the guards". I'm not sure I agree that all skill checks work like this though. Knowledge checks are pretty much indivisible from the goal - I'm trying to remember some piece of information, roll the check. There really isn't too much in the way of separation there. And, really, skill contests are somewhat separate here since there are multiple goals in play. The guards want to spot stuff. The character wants to sneak through. Whose goals are more important? After all, if I narrate a specific plan, the DM may allow me to bypass the guards without a roll. Can the NPC's also do the same thing? Seems a pretty strong advantage to PC's if not. OH, and no, I don't have anyone on ignore. :D But, yeah, I'm thinking that there's some serious hair splitting going on here. How about this example: I'm trying to hold a door shut from the zombies on the other side. Bog standard contest right? They win, the door opens, I win, the door stays shut. But, again, I don't stop holding the door if I fail the check. I'm still holding the door. I haven't failed the check at all. But, because you have separated the check from the actual actions in the game, now you have added a fail condition to skill contests - I have failed my goal. The issue with this is, it forces all checks to be black and white. Say I'm climbing a 50 foot wall. Now, with standard movement, it would take 4 checks to climb that wall (climb checks are half speed). To succeed in my goal (get to the top), I need to succeed 4 checks. Fair enough. But, my second best result is 4 straight failures. If I make the first three checks and fail the fourth and fall, then I take the most damage. The stakes rise with every check. But, the previous successes don't actually increase my chances of a subsequent success. So, my best "fail" is to fail 4 straight rolls. There is no "partial success" in the Goal and Method approach. Since any roll MUST have a fail condition. Which makes it a great too in some cases, but, a rather poor one in others. Maybe in my "hold the zombie door", failing by less than 5 only lets one zombie past. When you remove the "fail condition" to the die rolls and allow for partial successes, you gain a lot more flexibility. [/QUOTE]

Verification