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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8493769" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, the notion of describing declared actions in such a fashion as to achieve success, given the fiction, without a check being required is something that was talked about upthread. For some of the participants in this thread, it is an express goal of play (for the players in their games).That would satisfy your OSR inclinations, I think. Though in itself it still doesn't tell me how augmenting works! - maybe some of the information that will help come up with a no-check-required action declaration might be accessible only if a successful check (on eg WIS (Perception) or WIS (Survival) or INT (Investigation) ) is made.Because I'm a "say 'yes' or roll the dice"-oriented RPG, where the trigger for saying "yes" is not fictional positioning but narrative heft, I prefer approaches that allow augments to be factored in as modifiers to checks.I take that last question to be intended rhetorically. But treating it as literal, my answer would be it depends on what narrative significance - if any - it carries. It's a while since I remember something like that happening in a RPG session that I ran, but there were genuine stakes - ie could or couldn't the PC establish an advantageous vantage point for surveying the giant steading - and so a check was required. Failure wouldn't necessarily mean the climb failed, but it would mean that the advantageous vantage point was not established. Because the check succeeded, the details of any such failure (eg is the climbing PC spotted by giant guards) didn't need to be worked out.Although the system in question was not 5e D&D, I don't see any particular reason why 5e couldn't be run in a similar fashion.</blockquote>

Verification