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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6863962" data-attributes="member: 23935">In a good system (good in this case refers to the system's ability to generate/handle genre-appropriate situations and actions) there is little tension between causal and genre logic.  If there is tension, it is a sign I chose the wrong system for the game.  There can still be tension regarding dramatic logic, but in this case, I lean on the causal/genre logic and let players play out the drama with the tools at their disposal.  An outcome is uncertain if the declaration is hindered sufficiently by the environment such that both success and failure appear possible (the random factor has meaning) and consequential (such as time pressure, others may react, or the base situation is inflicting an effect).Again, in a good match between system and genre, the tension between causal and genre is limited.  My typical method of difficulty determination is precedent.  Published DCs form the basis and variations the PCs encounter over the course of their career inform future DCs.  If I decide to run a system outside its typical genre (5e for a swashbuckling Musketeer style game, for example), I'll create an initial set of DCs that cover typical genre tropes not found in the base ruleset (such as using a chandelier as a charge vector, attacking leather harnesses, and dueling while sliding down bannisters) and share them with the players so the group is on the same page as to the genre expectations in play.The DMG talks primarily about causal relationship to Advantage/Disadvantage. with "temporary circumstances", "circumstances not related to the creature's inherent capabilities", "some aspect of the environment" and "previous actions... improve chance of success".  Dramatic logic are covered by player choice of using/generating inspiration and/or actively adjusting the situation as above.  I tend to change "circumstances not related to the creature's inherent capabilities" to "circumstances specifically supporting/hindering a creature's inherent capabilities".  After all, most circumstances are not related to a creature's inherent capabilities.Most times failure resolution is straight-forward.  If you failed to climb out of the flaming pit, you are still in the pit taking fire damage.  In those cases where the result is not straight-forward, the players negotiated/were told the failure stakes as part of the ability check set up.  Most times an ability check is made to change the situation.  If the check fails, the situation remains status quo in much the same way a failed roll to hit an opponent doesn't give it new abilities.  If there is a change on failure, the players know (or could know if the situation has exploratory elements) the broad outlines of that risk before the roll.The consequences are driven directly by the consequential nature of the roll (see step 2).  If I have what I think is a neat trade-off, I'll offer it to the player in the case of failure (missed climbing out the pit by 1?  You can either fail OR make it out of the pit but lose the backpack in a final desperate scramble as you see you are going to come up short) -- the success at cost discussion in the DMG.  The costs are offered to the player, not imposed.  In those rare times where I have been a player and success at a cost has been imposed, I often preferred outright failure to the DM's cost.  Also the costs are directly attributable to the situation and generally causal to success.  "You knew in an instant the only way to get the last two inches would be to sacrifice the backpack and jump."</blockquote>

Verification