Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6795468" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Which I did mention as well. It's just a lot of GMs don't recognize that option.Yep, and I think that's perfectly valid. And frankly, my actual preference is closer to yours.The bottom line, is that I think there is a continuum of possible rulings. From a very strict binary resolution, to a very broad approach encompassing the entire circumstance.While I don't feel that 'fail forward' is the right term, I do think that quantifying a general approach that highlights what makes good exploration encounters/events, but not tying it to a specific system that also identifies the sort of 'degrees' of that continuum so a GM can find what approach they like.You like incorporating the Fate system in your game. I'm not a fan of that myself, but I'm not sure I'd go all the way to a climb check where you drop the rod. Instead, if the possibility of dropping the rod is a bit beyond what I would consider in the climb check myself. But I would consider the possibility that they might lose it if they fail their climb check severely enough, but not enough to fall, although they'd probably have to make a Dexterity save or something. This discussion is all very helpful to me, because it is helping identify the boundaries I have.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>