Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you use the Success w/ Complication Module in the DMG or Fail Forward in the Basic PDF
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8281244" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Philosophically, sure, but how does that play out at the table in actual play, when my character has tried and failed to do something, and nothing concrete in the fiction is preventing my character from keeping at it? What prevents me as a player from simply declaring exactly the same action again?</p><p></p><p>Ok, but again, what if I don’t want to set a limit on how long I’m willing to spend? What if I say “as long as it takes”?</p><p></p><p>The thing is, I want giving up to be my decision. Unless there’s something concrete in the fiction preventing me from keeping at it until I get it, I should have that option.</p><p></p><p>Seems arbitrary to me. Why can’t I try again as many times as I want? I know, I know, “you already did try again.” Well, unless something concrete in the fiction is stopping me, I want to try again <em>again</em>.</p><p></p><p>Eh, alright. Not my thing, personally.</p><p></p><p>No, D&D certainly doesn’t <em>require</em> binary checks. But usually it does employ binary checks, and the exceptions are usually just trinary or quarternary. It tends to be either pass/fail/fail by X or more, or pass by X or more/pass by less than X/fail by less than Y/fail by Y or more. And the more of these exceptions you make, the more you complicate an otherwise simple, elegant system. The binary nature of checks in D&D is, in my opinion, one of its greatest strengths. It keeps task resolution very streamlined and easy to use - and you can still make exceptions here and there where it makes sense to do so.</p><p></p><p>As for the swingyness, I think that’s a strength too. If I’m only calling for checks when success and failure are both realistic possibilities and failure has meaningful dramatic stakes, I <em>want</em> there to be a decent amount of swing. If that swing is undesirable, there’s a good chance it isn’t a task that should be resolved via a check.</p><p></p><p>Cool, looking forward to reading it! <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😊" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60a.png" title="Smiling face with smiling eyes :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8281244, member: 6779196"] Philosophically, sure, but how does that play out at the table in actual play, when my character has tried and failed to do something, and nothing concrete in the fiction is preventing my character from keeping at it? What prevents me as a player from simply declaring exactly the same action again? Ok, but again, what if I don’t want to set a limit on how long I’m willing to spend? What if I say “as long as it takes”? The thing is, I want giving up to be my decision. Unless there’s something concrete in the fiction preventing me from keeping at it until I get it, I should have that option. Seems arbitrary to me. Why can’t I try again as many times as I want? I know, I know, “you already did try again.” Well, unless something concrete in the fiction is stopping me, I want to try again [I]again[/I]. Eh, alright. Not my thing, personally. No, D&D certainly doesn’t [I]require[/I] binary checks. But usually it does employ binary checks, and the exceptions are usually just trinary or quarternary. It tends to be either pass/fail/fail by X or more, or pass by X or more/pass by less than X/fail by less than Y/fail by Y or more. And the more of these exceptions you make, the more you complicate an otherwise simple, elegant system. The binary nature of checks in D&D is, in my opinion, one of its greatest strengths. It keeps task resolution very streamlined and easy to use - and you can still make exceptions here and there where it makes sense to do so. As for the swingyness, I think that’s a strength too. If I’m only calling for checks when success and failure are both realistic possibilities and failure has meaningful dramatic stakes, I [I]want[/I] there to be a decent amount of swing. If that swing is undesirable, there’s a good chance it isn’t a task that should be resolved via a check. Cool, looking forward to reading it! 😊 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you use the Success w/ Complication Module in the DMG or Fail Forward in the Basic PDF
Top