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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5507373" data-attributes="member: 98255">Hey! We're on the same page for once! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yeah, that seems fair. Given that the "penalty" for failure is not usually that severe, and you are still supposed to award XP for completing the SC, successful or not, I don't find those numbers to be terribly unreasonable.And I also agree that for something that is supposed to be a major game mechanic and feature prominently in some modules and adventures, there needs to be more guidelines set forth in the DM books.I mean, they tired to offset the difficulty of higher complexity challenges by providing Advantages, and threw out a couple rough guidelines for using them, but I don't think they went far enough in that regard, especially where it concerns how to use them.I think another thing that could have helped SCs a lot would have been to encourage more "auto-success" scenarios that don't rely on dice rolls (necessarily). For example, if players do x, then it contributes an auto-success. It encourages them to think. If someone is clueless, you might have them roll, then drop a hint about the auto-success trigger, but don't give it away with just a roll.I see a lot more auto-fail conditions (usually Intimidate), which is fair enough sometimes, but this doesn't encourage thinking  your way through as much, it just feels like punishing someone for trying to contribute (even if it is admittedly a dumb idea they came up with). I think that's the wrong approach, personally.</blockquote>

Verification