Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics And Player Agency
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7742861" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>If I may, I'd say this could have been a great opportunity for a check, but not to make the party do anything. If, as it seems, the party had conflicting goals. Foremost, the party was strongly in favor of following their lead, which meant they could not assist the survivors. The survivors were currently on a course of action that would endanger them, or so the party believed, and the party was also strongly in favor of sending the survivors to safety. This is a great place for a check to resolve the stakes of the situation. The party put forth an argument to the survivors that they abandon their rescue efforts and retreat to safety. The survivors wanted assistance in rescue efforts. This could play out in a few ways, depending on some particulars:</p><p></p><p>1. The party gets their way, but at a possible cost. In this resolution, the party will convince the survivors to return to the town regardless. This is useful because it allows the party to continue on their chosen path, but adds a potential complication to that path, namely how do the survivors feel about it? A check could be made with a success meaning that the survivors accept the party's argument and agree to return to town, freeing the party to continue without further issue. A failure, though, would have the survivors return to town, but be bitter about it and spread tales of how the party abandoned people they could have saved because they didn't care. Depending on what the party wants out of this and the future, this could be a big complication even as they're allowed to continue on their chosen path.</p><p></p><p>2. The party will have to re-evaluate their plans. In this resolution, the party makes the check to convince the survivors to flee to safety. A success will have the survivors agree, but a failure will have them refuse and organize their own rescue party. This leave the party with a new choice, abandon the survivors and follow the lead or delay the lead, possibly losing it, to assist the survivors. Either way, the import of the check should be clear -- the result is what will happen and it will not be open to continued rehashing. The party succeeds or has a new choice to make, but the situation changes.</p><p></p><p>And that last bit is an important thing I've embraced about checks. If the dice are rolled, the <em>situation changes</em>. I work to do this for every check, to make every check meaningful. Being open about this and setting stakes can be a method, but I find I don't always have to set explicit stakes especially since my players have adjusted to this method. Picking a lock, even, can be more fun if a failure leads to a change in circumstance. An example, for my last game: the rogue attempted to pick a rusty lock on an old treasure chest and failed. I narrated that a pick had become wedged into the lock and was stuck in the mechanism. The player now had the choice to try to pick the lock but break the tool at the same DC, or attempt to save the tool but break the lock at the same DC. The failure put a resource (the lockpick) in jeopardy and made that failure a moment of drama rather than an empty roll that could just be re-rolled until it succeeds. The player, by the way, being cautious, recovered her tool and broke the lock. This meant the barbarian was up next to smash it open, a feat easily accomplished but rendering the chest unusable for it's purpose of holding things. Also noisy, which reminded me to check to see if anything nearby heard.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7742861, member: 16814"] If I may, I'd say this could have been a great opportunity for a check, but not to make the party do anything. If, as it seems, the party had conflicting goals. Foremost, the party was strongly in favor of following their lead, which meant they could not assist the survivors. The survivors were currently on a course of action that would endanger them, or so the party believed, and the party was also strongly in favor of sending the survivors to safety. This is a great place for a check to resolve the stakes of the situation. The party put forth an argument to the survivors that they abandon their rescue efforts and retreat to safety. The survivors wanted assistance in rescue efforts. This could play out in a few ways, depending on some particulars: 1. The party gets their way, but at a possible cost. In this resolution, the party will convince the survivors to return to the town regardless. This is useful because it allows the party to continue on their chosen path, but adds a potential complication to that path, namely how do the survivors feel about it? A check could be made with a success meaning that the survivors accept the party's argument and agree to return to town, freeing the party to continue without further issue. A failure, though, would have the survivors return to town, but be bitter about it and spread tales of how the party abandoned people they could have saved because they didn't care. Depending on what the party wants out of this and the future, this could be a big complication even as they're allowed to continue on their chosen path. 2. The party will have to re-evaluate their plans. In this resolution, the party makes the check to convince the survivors to flee to safety. A success will have the survivors agree, but a failure will have them refuse and organize their own rescue party. This leave the party with a new choice, abandon the survivors and follow the lead or delay the lead, possibly losing it, to assist the survivors. Either way, the import of the check should be clear -- the result is what will happen and it will not be open to continued rehashing. The party succeeds or has a new choice to make, but the situation changes. And that last bit is an important thing I've embraced about checks. If the dice are rolled, the [I]situation changes[/I]. I work to do this for every check, to make every check meaningful. Being open about this and setting stakes can be a method, but I find I don't always have to set explicit stakes especially since my players have adjusted to this method. Picking a lock, even, can be more fun if a failure leads to a change in circumstance. An example, for my last game: the rogue attempted to pick a rusty lock on an old treasure chest and failed. I narrated that a pick had become wedged into the lock and was stuck in the mechanism. The player now had the choice to try to pick the lock but break the tool at the same DC, or attempt to save the tool but break the lock at the same DC. The failure put a resource (the lockpick) in jeopardy and made that failure a moment of drama rather than an empty roll that could just be re-rolled until it succeeds. The player, by the way, being cautious, recovered her tool and broke the lock. This meant the barbarian was up next to smash it open, a feat easily accomplished but rendering the chest unusable for it's purpose of holding things. Also noisy, which reminded me to check to see if anything nearby heard. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics And Player Agency
Top