Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8506184" data-attributes="member: 16814">This is very weird.  You earlier complained that you didn't craft a complete and coherent model for the play loop because you assumed the check was assumed and so just went to crafting consequences.  I can find the direct quote of this, if you'd like.  The first time you mention time pressure is here, the first time you mention anything about an easy/hard section of climb was multiple posts after your original answer.  In the post right before this you said it was hard to conceive how to maintain adjudication across the three cases, yet here you're blithely claiming that the adjudication was the same in all three.It's extremely hard to reconcile your complaints about how I was asking gotcha questions and why you felt that way and where your mistakes in understanding occurred (and I reference ones you claimed earlier, not some new or different ones) and yet all of that is suddenly resolved here, when you're explaining your earlier thought processes.  My immediate conclusion here is that you've created this explanation post hoc and have no applied it to the prior.  There's still great problems with this, as I'll address here:I'm 100% familiar with how these work, but I'm wondering why you're telling me this when you're misusing them above!  Firstly, DCs don't even enter into the discussion at all.  The multiple checks rule is the only place that time pressure really interacts at all so I'm not sure why you're separating these.  As for multiple checks, you have to first accept that the result of a given check is that there is no significant cost to failure -- ie, that the result of a check is no progress only, no other costs.  You then can, in the interests of speeding up play, just assume that the task succeeds at 10x the normal time (which cannot be any real cost, either, otherwise we cannot use this rule).  To cite this rule, you have to 100% embrace "no cost" failure.Are you indeed claiming no cost to the checks here so that you can call upon this rule?  It seems 100% counter to the point you're trying to make.Just so we're clear on the section and rule, here it is again:Emphasis mine.  Further it's useful to note that the character has to spend 10x the time to get this advantage -- this is not something that the GM asserts for the character, otherwise we're violating the PHB pg6 process because now the GM is declaring actions for the PC (ie, spending the extra time).You admonished others much earlier in the thread that if you're going to correct you on a rule, you better come 100% right or you will hold them accountable.  It seems that worm may have turned.I didn't.  I asked the question according to what you demanded.You didn't.  In fact, there's a glaring problem here.  In the first example, you said you were considering the situation in 1 minute increments.  Yet a single failure (not situated at the easy slope, so no progress was the result of that check, not damage or other consequence) immediately triggered a failure of the goal -- because of a delay of 1 minute.Look, I'm just going with what you're providing.  I'm not adding new details.  I'm trying to follow along with your claims.Right, 1 minute delay before trying again means the ritual completes.  That's a serious complication, yes?  And absence of time pressure only guides to "yes" on the easy section if the player declares taking 10x the time to climb that section.  Further, if this is true, then the problem I posted above still remains!  The first failure is at the overhang, and the result is still no progress and a retry offered!  Even with this extended detour into no time pressure doesn't really answer or solve either of my primary points against either case even if we accept that you're 100% correct on how that works!I see no added complexity here for this.  And, no, your solution adds conflicts in adjudication and narration!  You still have the problem that a single failed check in case 1, representing at most a 1 minute delay, causes a total failure in a goal that isn't being resolved by the check (the check addresses climbing).  You also still have the problem that on a failed check in case 3, the complication was no progress only and a retry offered.  Nothing about time pressure actually solves or addresses why you chose to implicate the overall goal in 1 and not in 3, and why in 3 the only leveled consequence was no progress.</blockquote>

Verification