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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8273744" data-attributes="member: 82106">Interesting, lets analyze this from an 'indie game' perspective:OK, so 4e, for example, says basically "Say yes, or roll the dice." However, I think it is fair to assume that there is generally a "no, you can't just find a laser in the Duke's bathroom" sort of principle at work, though it is unstated. So a GM can say "nah, that's just not appropriate to the fiction, at all." or "nah, that breaks genre conventions." 4e does have a mild 'rule 0' in that sense, this is a GM call, though there are places where the text talks about the table discussing things. Other games may vary, so maybe in some cases rejection of an action declaration would effectively take table pressure or something, making it 'bad faith play'.  I would judge that 5e is compatible at this level with what I would consider good practice.Here we start to run into an issue for me. While this sort of framing of checks may be acceptable in some cases, if it is taken as an absolute requirement of the system, then it basically broke pretty much every way to do anything but binary hard pass/fail. Obviously said pass/fail could still entail a fail state that is effectively 'partial' (IE the guard doesn't ring the master alarm when the thief fails the stealth check right off).Just a restatement of 'say yes', plus a milder restatement of hard fail that gives some wiggle room.Contests, AKA opposed checks, don't really change the model, they are simply an alternative DC-setting mechanism. Not bad, but not changing much. The shading on the hard fail is hard to evaluate, some GMs might use it to provide soft fail, effectively, and that might open up some cans of worms, but that isn't system's problem.Just as an observation: This seems like a poorly thought out process to me. The DC table doesn't account for the (usually level associated) capabilities of the PCs. Thus it encourages GMs to simply call things DC 25 or DC 30 simply because they 'sound hard' and that bones lower level PCs. The rules NEED to discuss relative difficulty. This is not even a foreign concept to 5e, as it has CR for monsters. The lack of this discussion is a MAJOR problem for 5e's ability check system! It means, by the book at least, low level PCs should shun all skill checks, and high level ones should waltz past most of them. It doesn't even make sense.I like this mechanic overall, but it should be the ONLY modifier mechanic IMHO. Anyway, this is just me, as a mechanic it doesn't really impact overall system characteristics.In the context of the default hard fail where a skill check is absolutely bound to a single fictional action something like a more robust system for deciding and arbitrating the degree and consequences of failure and success would be very valuable, but what is presented is both optional and not even very well written.Yeah, so, basically we see the root of the reason people may be talking about 'the heist fails at the first check failure'. Every check in 5e is an action bound to a fiction. The GM picks the type of check, and the DC, and does so AFTER the player declares the action. Consequences are never discussed at all, though there is a hint that a 'soft fail' could be possible (but often this won't even make sense fictionally anyway). GMs might optionally (or simply as a matter of principle) provide failure that allows for a continuation, but Fail Forward per se is not even discussed, at least in this summary. So, a 'by the book' 5e GM is certainly within the rules text when they would say "OK, make a DC20 Stealth check, oh you failed, the alarm rings!" There isn't any negotiation, no player-side management of risk, resources to pay down failures, or structure to explicitly produce other kinds of results besides a fictionally negative outcome of potentially unlimited consequence. I don't feel that anything here would make me re-evaluate my existing opinion of 5e's check system/core mechanic. It is OK as far as it goes. It is simply woefully inadequate. I would note that we would have to review how the GM is instructed, and how explicitly, in terms of what kinds of consequences to invoke and to what ends in order to complete the picture (IE Dungeon World relies heavily on its agendas and principles to contextualize its mechanics). However I'm pretty sure that there is a strong message in 5e there to the effect that the GM is in charge and should "do what they think is right."</blockquote>

Verification