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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8441558" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I disagree. Even if the consequences of rolling under the target number (which the system refers to as “failure”) are only ever no progress, that’s still going to lead to a pretty decent gameplay experience; certainly a better one than one where checks with no consequence (remember that I am using the literal meaning of consequence here, “1. a result or effect of an action or condition. 2. Importance or relevance”) are frequently called for. Obviously progress with a setback on a failure, and similar techniques like progress on a failure but progress with an additional upside on success, are also useful tools. All of these things are consequences of failure. It is literally what I mean. Rolling under the target number is defined in the game mechanics as “failing” the check. I’ve earlier cited the definition of consequence. I believe that the former should always result in the latter. Doing otherwise leads to a pretty unsatisfying gameplay experience.It literally is a consequence for failure.As I’ve said twice now, I’ve seen it often. Most often, from DMs who are simply uncritically calling for checks whenever action is declared, without thinking through what the outcomes for success and failure will be. When failure is rolled, such DMs tend to simply narrate the results of eventual success, with the addition of some inconsequential detail like it being “really hard” or the character “barely managing to succeed” or “taking a really long time” when there isn’t actually any time pressure making that relevant.Sure. I think “only call for rolls when failure has a meaningful consequence” is a more efficient way to render that same sentiment, but I take no issue with this rephrasing.</blockquote>

Verification