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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 9751919" data-attributes="member: 6787503">I'm curious about this possibility with regard to conflict resolution. Even though it honors the failure result of the roll (i.e. it "cares" about intent), it also "breaks" the relationship between task and intent which Vincent Baker, in his twenty year old blog post, says conflict resolution maintains. Does this push it more toward task resolution, or does the failed die roll give the GM license to do whatever they want with the task, having it fail or succeed according to whichever is more interesting? I believe this is what [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] said she would do on a failure. I meant to emphasize the difference more but reflexively resorted to ineffective use of understatement, probably because I wasn't sure how it was relevant to the conversation. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937.png" title="Person shrugging    :person_shrugging:" data-shortname=":person_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />This seems similar to the practice of some 5E DMs (me included) of not calling for a roll unless there's a "meaningful consequence of failure". I think reference to player intent is probably key in spelling out a difference in some approaches to this. Right, I think 5E leaves it pretty open whether the DM needs to consider the player's intent at all without adhering to principles not found in the rules themselves. Thanks for the explanation!</blockquote>

Verification