Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7588712" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Absolutely agree with some of this but especially the ways to treat failures as more than just crap. I mean, for all the misrepresentation otherwise, even 5e has &quot;some progress with setback&quot; as one of its core rules definitions for what a failure on an ability check can be.I dont know how long, or how many systems, ago it was when I started looking at every result of a check/action as an opportunity to bring out or spotlight something new and/or interesting. But, I am pretty sure it was not soon after that that my gameplay improved and my players found fun in trying when everything did not seem a threat to their survival.Then when I see things like this, exposed even today &quot;If you like the randomness of the die, the GM probably isn't applying consequences for failure.&quot; It brings back home the old days and how much I still have to work with players to get them over the consequences of that style of play. It also tends to show itself in the &quot; if they die, gotta have punishments&quot; and &quot;make zero hp tougher&quot; styles imo.BTW your sorcery thugs mad me laugh, remembering all the fiction and movie examples where the investigators get stymied on their investigations but then when thugs show up to beat them up, warn them off they realize &quot; we are onto something after all.&quot; Your failure may spawn someone else's un-forced error, especially if they are say &quot; paranoid.&quot;DEFAULT DISCLAIMER - All styles valid. Your preferences may vary. No bad wrong fun. Just saying that we have more fun with these than we did with the others. You baby is cute too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7588712, member: 6919838"] Absolutely agree with some of this but especially the ways to treat failures as more than just crap. I mean, for all the misrepresentation otherwise, even 5e has "some progress with setback" as one of its core rules definitions for what a failure on an ability check can be. I dont know how long, or how many systems, ago it was when I started looking at every result of a check/action as an opportunity to bring out or spotlight something new and/or interesting. But, I am pretty sure it was not soon after that that my gameplay improved and my players found fun in trying when everything did not seem a threat to their survival. Then when I see things like this, exposed even today "If you like the randomness of the die, the GM probably isn't applying consequences for failure." It brings back home the old days and how much I still have to work with players to get them over the consequences of that style of play. It also tends to show itself in the " if they die, gotta have punishments" and "make zero hp tougher" styles imo. BTW your sorcery thugs mad me laugh, remembering all the fiction and movie examples where the investigators get stymied on their investigations but then when thugs show up to beat them up, warn them off they realize " we are onto something after all." Your failure may spawn someone else's un-forced error, especially if they are say " paranoid." DEFAULT DISCLAIMER - All styles valid. Your preferences may vary. No bad wrong fun. Just saying that we have more fun with these than we did with the others. You baby is cute too. [/QUOTE]

Verification