Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8271037" data-attributes="member: 42582">The quite clear laying out is in the DMG 2. I think it's also laid out in the DMG, but I'm prepared to concede that, while clear, it's not quite clear!The bigger point, which relates to my post not too far upthread about structure and constraint, is made in your first para. What does failing this check mean for my overall prospects of success? The skill challenge framework answers that question. It establishes parameters for what the GM may narrate - it can't be a fiction of total failure, if it's not the third failed check.One parallel in PbtA systems is Perception/Discern Realities-type checks that oblige the GM to tell the player something true and useful. The GM is under constraints on what is narrated. Likewise (turning from success to failure) the basic process of first making soft moves - to set up threat/stakes/consequences - and then following through with hard moves (ie irrevocable fall-out).The contrast with 5e seems pretty clear to me. There is no soft-move/hard-move process. There is no structural constraint on what sort of outcomes of successful or failed checks the GM should narrate. In another recent thread a 5e proponent was arguing that there is no obligation, if a lore check is successful, for the GM to provide the player with any useful lore.This is all relevant to how, and how well, a system permits adjudication of a heist, or any other high-stakes but  non-combat endeavour.</blockquote>

Verification