Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 8274884" data-attributes="member: 20323">Good to see you on here Manbearcat!So, I do not use fail forward or success with complication as outlined in the DMG.(1) Why? Because I prefer other elements of the game interacting with each other to generate that sort of layered result, whereas with single checks I prefer a gradient between &quot;no, and...&quot; (i.e. natural 1 or fail by 5+), &quot;no&quot; (fail or fail by 1-4), &quot;yes&quot; (succeed or succeed by 1-4), and &quot;yes, and...&quot; (succeed by 1-4 or nat 20). I reserve &quot;yes but&quot; for skill challenge type scenarios &amp; scenarios that are more complex than a single check &amp; special homebrewed monster abilities. However, this happens in the context of fewer rolls (I use lots of auto-success, just giving them the info, or outright saying &quot;it's not possible, unless X, Y, or Z&quot;) with more importance placed on those rolls, and failure generally meaning something changes, rather than stays the same.(2) I'm not sure how to answer, since what I do is a bit different than what you've described.(3) I would say only certain instances, but &quot;instance&quot; is a bad word for how I do it, since I reserve Success With Complication for very specific situations, which generally are more complex than a single roll can account for.(4) Creative sorcery that blends (a) reading the mood / engagement / interest level at the table, (b) how complex the scenario is &amp; whether it merits application of Success With Complication, and (c) whether I've accounted for such in my notes for the monster or trap.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 8274884, member: 20323"] Good to see you on here Manbearcat! So, I do not use fail forward or success with complication as outlined in the DMG. (1) Why? Because I prefer other elements of the game interacting with each other to generate that sort of layered result, whereas with single checks I prefer a gradient between "no, and..." (i.e. natural 1 or fail by 5+), "no" (fail or fail by 1-4), "yes" (succeed or succeed by 1-4), and "yes, and..." (succeed by 1-4 or nat 20). I reserve "yes but" for skill challenge type scenarios & scenarios that are more complex than a single check & special homebrewed monster abilities. However, this happens in the context of fewer rolls (I use lots of auto-success, just giving them the info, or outright saying "it's not possible, unless X, Y, or Z") with more importance placed on those rolls, and failure generally meaning something changes, rather than stays the same. (2) I'm not sure how to answer, since what I do is a bit different than what you've described. (3) I would say only certain instances, but "instance" is a bad word for how I do it, since I reserve Success With Complication for very specific situations, which generally are more complex than a single roll can account for. (4) Creative sorcery that blends (a) reading the mood / engagement / interest level at the table, (b) how complex the scenario is & whether it merits application of Success With Complication, and (c) whether I've accounted for such in my notes for the monster or trap. [/QUOTE]

Verification