Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6255253" data-attributes="member: 20323">Haha, oddly enough you focused on our difference of opinion and not the overlap in our arguments.I think that's a good point, and is in the same vein as my thinking about the need for more interesting choices and non-binary success/failure. With a group check, there is greater cognitive burden for the DM to figure out what the hell that means in the narrative. And I don't think it needs to be that way, it's just a product of the system chosen (group skill check). What I'm arguing is that we misunderstand&nbsp; what it means when players say &quot;we are sneaking in&quot; and we need to rethink what a Stealth resolution system means.Same goes for Perception.&nbsp; Same goes for Knowledge Skills.In 4e the system assumed PCs had a baseline of competence in all skills. Maybe that was going to far, but given how popular the &quot;sneak in&quot; tactic is, at least for Stealth it makes sense. I'm saying separate the idea of a Stealth Challenge from the stealth skill check. The challenge can encompass a whole lot of things, and assumes that the PCs get *somewhere* with their stealth mission and not just &quot;sorry, you fail.&quot;When I say &quot;Fail Forward&quot; I am not saying that *success* at the Stealth Challenge has to happen. On the contrary. I'm saying whatever happens has to be engaging what the PCs' are trying. So the consequences for a bad decision or a failed check should reflect what they're doing (and can be really really nasty! and, I'd argue, should be!). But they shouldn't be so fragile that a single skill check blows the whole thing, nor should they ever have the DM reply &quot;you fail, nothing happens.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 6255253, member: 20323"] Haha, oddly enough you focused on our difference of opinion and not the overlap in our arguments. I think that's a good point, and is in the same vein as my thinking about the need for more interesting choices and non-binary success/failure. With a group check, there is greater cognitive burden for the DM to figure out what the hell that means in the narrative. And I don't think it needs to be that way, it's just a product of the system chosen (group skill check). What I'm arguing is that we misunderstand what it means when players say "we are sneaking in" and we need to rethink what a Stealth resolution system means. Same goes for Perception. Same goes for Knowledge Skills. In 4e the system assumed PCs had a baseline of competence in all skills. Maybe that was going to far, but given how popular the "sneak in" tactic is, at least for Stealth it makes sense. I'm saying separate the idea of a Stealth Challenge from the stealth skill check. The challenge can encompass a whole lot of things, and assumes that the PCs get *somewhere* with their stealth mission and not just "sorry, you fail." When I say "Fail Forward" I am not saying that *success* at the Stealth Challenge has to happen. On the contrary. I'm saying whatever happens has to be engaging what the PCs' are trying. So the consequences for a bad decision or a failed check should reflect what they're doing (and can be really really nasty! and, I'd argue, should be!). But they shouldn't be so fragile that a single skill check blows the whole thing, nor should they ever have the DM reply "you fail, nothing happens." [/QUOTE]

Verification