Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8729221" data-attributes="member: 6987520">With what has been presented to me they are pretty much the same thing. The only &quot;differences&quot; are:1. tracking a number of success and failures until some &quot;goal&quot; resolution is met.2. asking each PC what they are doing to contribute to achieving that number of successes.Instead of #1, each success or failure affects the next step in the scenario until the scene is resolved. Since each PC can be contributing at the same time, this is not necessarily &quot;linear&quot; as people might think.Instead of #2, the resolution is not binary as varying degrees of success is certainly possible.In either case, you are making a series of skill checks, each of which can affect the scenario in information gained, interactions, etc.Now, adding a pre-generated &quot;structure&quot; and options (if a PC does this and succeeds, it is one more success towards their final result) I can see (as I commented above) being helpful to novice or struggling DMs, but otherwise I would agree with this:<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Anyway, again thanks to all for outlining the differences. Of course, depending on the scenario, it could be a &quot;solo&quot; skill &quot;challenge&quot; (if indeed, such a thing exists?) or involve multiple party members. But, then again, combat can also be solo (a scout encountering resistance) or involve more PCs (typical combat).I have found in combat certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more; and in the other pillars certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more. I don't expect a balance between the three pillars and players, PCs, or classes, as everyone plays their PC differently.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8729221, member: 6987520"] With what has been presented to me they are pretty much the same thing. The only "differences" are: 1. tracking a number of success and failures until some "goal" resolution is met. 2. asking each PC what they are doing to contribute to achieving that number of successes. Instead of #1, each success or failure affects the next step in the scenario until the scene is resolved. Since each PC can be contributing at the same time, this is not necessarily "linear" as people might think. Instead of #2, the resolution is not binary as varying degrees of success is certainly possible. In either case, you are making a series of skill checks, each of which can affect the scenario in information gained, interactions, etc. Now, adding a pre-generated "structure" and options (if a PC does this and succeeds, it is one more success towards their final result) I can see (as I commented above) being helpful to novice or struggling DMs, but otherwise I would agree with this: :) Anyway, again thanks to all for outlining the differences. Of course, depending on the scenario, it could be a "solo" skill "challenge" (if indeed, such a thing exists?) or involve multiple party members. But, then again, combat can also be solo (a scout encountering resistance) or involve more PCs (typical combat). I have found in combat certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more; and in the other pillars certain players, PCs, and classes will contribute more. I don't expect a balance between the three pillars and players, PCs, or classes, as everyone plays their PC differently. [/QUOTE]

Verification