Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm-Bringer" data-source="post: 4165999" data-attributes="member: 57832">Because the skill checks themselves don't produce a tangible result, other than a tick in the win/loss column.In the given example, the first Athletics check could have been the only success.&nbsp; In which case, the only thing they would have known is that the corpse was sewn up.&nbsp; The next four checks could have been failures, in which case, the encounter was failed.&nbsp; Finding out a detail about the trap did nothing to further disarming the trap.&nbsp; Unless the trap was successfully disarmed.&nbsp; In which case, the detail was important.&nbsp; If the trap was set off or not disarmed, the detail is meaningless.&nbsp; Each step of the 'process' is entirely dependent on the outcome.If the players decide after the first check that the whole situation is dodgy and find some other way to disarm it, then you have a system that isn't necessary, as adequate clues and other tools will only require one or two skill checks.&nbsp; Perhaps Perception and Thievery.&nbsp; With the encounter system, no one check actually affects the encounter until the oiutcome is determined.&nbsp; Climbing the tree didn't make the observation more or less difficult, and in fact was unnecessary for the rolls that came after it.&nbsp; Perception could have just as well been the first roll, with Athletics the second or subsequent roll.&nbsp; The order of the rolls is inconsequential to the outcome, as long as the meta-game tally is recorded.Since the order of the rolls doesn't affect the outcome, no individual roll affects the outcome.&nbsp; The description of the scene, therefore, is tied solely to the outcome.&nbsp; Climbing the tree has no particular effect on the sequence, as it could have been a History check, the Athletics check, or a Thievery check.&nbsp; None of these lead to the next in any causal fashion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm-Bringer, post: 4165999, member: 57832"] Because the skill checks themselves don't produce a tangible result, other than a tick in the win/loss column. In the given example, the first Athletics check could have been the only success. In which case, the only thing they would have known is that the corpse was sewn up. The next four checks could have been failures, in which case, the encounter was failed. Finding out a detail about the trap did nothing to further disarming the trap. [i]Unless the trap was successfully disarmed[/i]. In which case, the detail was important. If the trap was set off or not disarmed, the detail is meaningless. Each step of the 'process' is entirely dependent on the outcome. If the players decide after the first check that the whole situation is dodgy and find some other way to disarm it, then you have a system that isn't necessary, as adequate clues and other tools will only require one or two skill checks. Perhaps Perception and Thievery. With the encounter system, no one check actually affects the encounter until the oiutcome is determined. Climbing the tree didn't make the observation more or less difficult, and in fact was unnecessary for the rolls that came after it. Perception could have just as well been the first roll, with Athletics the second or subsequent roll. The order of the rolls is inconsequential to the outcome, as long as the meta-game tally is recorded. Since the order of the rolls doesn't affect the outcome, no individual roll affects the outcome. The description of the scene, therefore, is tied solely to the outcome. Climbing the tree has no particular effect on the sequence, as it could have been a History check, the Athletics check, or a Thievery check. None of these lead to the next in any causal fashion. [/QUOTE]

Verification