Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7806785" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Do you mean it in a different way than GSN theory does?I don’t see a problem with that. The action is still subject to the normal action resolution rules, and it’s not like the player is always going to know an approach that won’t have a chance of failure. I don’t do it that way for other reasons, but I don’t think this particular criticism of that technique is a strong one.I don’t think “roll a d20, add a modified reflecting your training, try to beat a target number reflecting the difficulty of the task” is particularly elaborate.My issue isn’t with capable characters randomly failing, my issue is with characters’ maximum capability being constantly subject to random fluctuation. Sure, I might fail to open the jar. I might fail repeatedly at it, and decide it isn’t worth my time. Someone less strong than me might have a go at it and succeed instantly. But what doesn’t happen is the jar doesn’t somehow become beyond my capability to open. If I kept at it long enough I would have gotten it, but my time, unlike that if D&D characters, is always a limited resource.Sure, if you prefer to phrase it that way. Point is, the die roll isn’t reflecting the character’s performance in the moment. Whether it’s the character’s capabilities or the difficulty of the task that’s determined at random, it’s still bizarre.Right, and that’s weird.Right, yeah, that’s all fine. What’s weird to me is that the character can’t just attempt the latter task again, given that a DC 17 task is clearly within that character’s capabilities to succeed at.It’s probably a strong selling point to a particular type of player. Those players are probably all playing Pathfinder these days.</blockquote>

Verification