It’s also very much not a hallmark of this style of DMing. It’s a personal call of Ovinomancer’s, one I and many others wouldn’t make. Would you allow a PC to completely negate the damage from a 100 foot fall with any result on an Acrobatics check (or whatever it was)? Cause I sure wouldn’t. An important part of the style is evaluating if an approach can succeed at achieving the goal, and if you ask me, tucking and rolling can’t succeed at allowing you to walk away from a 100 foot fall unharmed. Maybe in Ovinomancer’s book it would, this style is very dependent on DM discretion (to its credit, in my opinion,) which means these kinds of things are going to vary from table to table. Just because you don’t like one DM’s call on a specific action doesn’t mean the whole style is useless.But, this quote from @Ovinomancer
Sums up my point pretty well. The notion that if you attempt anything not specifically called out by a skill must not only carry the risk of failure but also must carry an additional penalty far in excess of whatever benefit you might get is why I am so opposed to this style of DMing. It's just not what I want in a game.
Imagine I make a check to pick a lock and I fail. What consequence have I suffered fromFailure is it's own penalty. Failing a skill check does not mean that you must also add on additional punitive punishments.
this failure on its own?
A strong indication that Ovinomancer isn’t concerned about giving “free stuff on high rolls.” Did he ever actually use this phrase?
Nor do I. Nor, I suspect, does Ovinomancer. You disagree with his assessment of the underlying math and what is or isn’t balanced. Fair enough, I guess, game balance is a tricky beast and people evaluate it in different ways. None of this is an indication that either of your preferred action resolution techniques are fundamentally flawed.It's about recognizing that there is underlying math here and it's a game. It needs to be balanced or it just becomes a trap option.
I don't play to drop trap options on my players.