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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8276873" data-attributes="member: 29398">In the metagame, perhaps.  From the character's point of view - and she's the one trying this action - she does the best she can at that time and in that situation; and that's what the one roll is modelling for me.Again, only in the metagame.  Your character can't see your dice.Which is good.  A lot of this whole issue regarding fail-forward etc. seems to revolve around difficulty mitigation and-or removal of obstacles; things which IMO 5e already does more than enough of.When you say "DCs aren't out in the wild", I kind of disagree in that any given thing e.g. a lock is going to present the same difficulty whether or not someone is trying to pick it at the time.  Put another way, the lock always has a DC to pick.There's no such thing as "no consequence for failure", though, as gaining the knowledge that you can't do something is still a consequence; as is the fact that either something else now must be tried or the goal of passing the obstacle must be abandoned.Might I ask why you avoid the bolded bit?  I far prefer a sliding-scale type of resolution to straight-up pass-fail, when it's possible.I do, in that it seems far more believable than always being able to give your best-ever shot at something.  Also, it's not "your first try represents your best attempt" but rather "your first roll represents your best attempt", in that you're concatenating what might in the fiction be a series of tries or attempts into one roll.Odd: we agree on Take-20 but probably come from opposite directions to do so. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification