Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8274943" data-attributes="member: 6921763">Count me in the camp that uses &quot;progress combined with a setback&quot; but not the &quot;success at a cost&quot; rules.While only calling for ability checks when there is a chance of success or failure AND a meaningful consequence to failure, sometimes the situation calls for allowing the PCs to make progress but with a setback.&nbsp; Success at a cost is too fiddly - I like the simplicity of pass/fail and I can assign the appropriate level of consequence on the back end (which I will typically tell the player before the roll anyway).Yes.&nbsp; I played 1e then took a couple decade hiatus from RPGs.Certain instances.The bottleneck example provided by [USER=86653]@overgeeked[/USER] is a good one.&nbsp; Even on a failure, let the players proceed through the check to advance the story but with a setback of some sort that challenges them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8274943, member: 6921763"] Count me in the camp that uses "progress combined with a setback" but not the "success at a cost" rules. While only calling for ability checks when there is a chance of success or failure AND a meaningful consequence to failure, sometimes the situation calls for allowing the PCs to make progress but with a setback. Success at a cost is too fiddly - I like the simplicity of pass/fail and I can assign the appropriate level of consequence on the back end (which I will typically tell the player before the roll anyway). Yes. I played 1e then took a couple decade hiatus from RPGs. Certain instances. The bottleneck example provided by [USER=86653]@overgeeked[/USER] is a good one. Even on a failure, let the players proceed through the check to advance the story but with a setback of some sort that challenges them. [/QUOTE]

Verification