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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bihlbo" data-source="post: 8057352" data-attributes="member: 9961">This isn't an approach. You wrote a rule. Rules get applied when conditions are met. If you'd stated that you think it helps a game to sometimes introduce complications when you feel like it's appropriate, then that would have been an approach to DMing. But you wrote a rule that dictates how you adjudicate ability checks."This is how I spice things up" is just good DMing. That's not a house rule at all."Sorry, but you only got a 12. Yes, that's a success, but I have to introduce a complication now because you didn't get a 15 on this DC 10 check," is a governing rule. See the difference?I'm curious though, could you come up with satisfying complications for the 8 scenarios I listed? I had a much bigger list, but those were the only ones for which I couldn't think of a complication. You can just say, "If you aren't creative enough to think of complications, then it's not for you," but that's lazy. If you think it works as a rule, I'd like to learn how that actually works at the table. Because while I might not like it, I could accept that it works if it's explained.There's a certain amount of variability we already naturally work into the game when DMing. Some situations are just complex. When Rodax rolls 8 higher on his Persuasion check versus the shopkeeper's Insight, we naturally treat that as something a little special. If his roll had been 1 under, we naturally would want to let that sorta work, but not quite. Complications are a good tool that are already suggested in the DMG, and work great for situations like the adventure of Rodax at the Mouth of Market Street. As a DMing practice, occasionally using complications rather than binary win/loss can be really fun.But as a house rule for all ability checks? There I agree that it's complexity is unappealing.</blockquote>

Verification