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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="grendel111111" data-source="post: 6790102" data-attributes="member: 6803870">I am a little confused as to why it is important for you that everyone  has the same level of abstraction for all action, but I will accept that for you this is very important.Accepting that I think your example misses the mark. If you want all parts of the game to have the same level of abstraction, and you want all factors involved in mountaineering to be covered by 1 check and the DM narrates any outcomes that come from the roll. Why do you not do the same for combat? Player rolls opposed skill check based on weapon being used. The DM the just narrated how they won the fight, but broke their sword (if they failed their check). Resolved in the same "zoom" scale as your mountaineering example.But the fact is different actions can be addressed in different scales and we do it all the time. And the level of zoom one person likes for an action can be different to what another likes. Hence the reason I'm not saying my approach is they way the game is "supposed" to be played, or that anyone else should play the game with my preferred style unless they like that style.Part of the reason that how it interacts with the system is so very important is because it changes the system. They interact with each other. And if I don't like the dungeon world approach to role playing how is pushing D and D more towards that style of game going to make me like it  more? A big part of running D and D games is deciding which techniques will create the kind of game that you and your players will enjoy, and employing those that support the experience you want to have. As a result fail forward in  all it's forms forms could be moving you towards the style of game  (and system) that you want or moving you away from it.</blockquote>

Verification