Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6183109" data-attributes="member: 48965">The narration still references the specific task that was attempted by the player. The duke's answer is a direct reply to what was said by the PC in the fiction, and the task itself was a success or failure of the diplomacy check. The fact that the outcome isn't narrated as persuading the duke is purely based on the fact that X successes haven't been reached before Y failures.  However the narration does directly refer to the action taking for that particular event/task. Wait a minute, so your argument is that because the book doesn't explicitly call out that there are no partial successes or failures (even though there are no rules for such things) means there must be partial successes and failures in SC's... I call B.S. Ok, right there in your last quoted sentence... success = rewards/ failure = penalties in a SC...did you also read these parts from pg. 74... "...other conditions can impose a sense of urgency on a skill challenge or comprise part of the penalty for failing a skill challenge. (nothing about penalties when succeeding) "If you put up a monetary cost on the challenge (as in the example of the ogre mercenaries), try to make up that cost in treasure if the characters succeed at the challenge.  If they fail, the cost is part of the penalty they pay." Both of these statements strongly imply negative consequences should only be carried forward if the SC fails and they are part of the fail condition (binary), otherwise this seems to suggest consequences should be mitigated or counteracted if the PC's actually end up succeeding at the SC, not that there should be "partial successes". No one's arguing against this, what's being argued against is the limited definition being ascribed to fail forward which for some seems to mean "always succeed (even when the roll fails) but with complications"... I didn't argue against this either... SC's have binary success and failure consequences that are pre-defined as part of their structure while combats can be built like this but don't have to be... that was my point. Yet in Majoru Oakheart's example the adventure didn't stop.  Always succeeding is not the same as failing forward.Yet at the end of the day in a 10/3 challenge you could get 9 successes and still fail the overall challenge by getting 3 successive failures afterwards... which would be a failure (not a partial success or partial failure of the SC).  It's a simple as that.  You can add all these conditions and new goals outside the SC structure to make it work differently but in the end these are your houserules, not how SC's in the DMG1 are presented.There are no partial successes in SC's by raw... Nowhere is one of the steps assign partial success conditions and partial failure conditions... nowhere are there guidelines for how many X successes vs. Y failures equal a partial success or failure.  Thus the answer to this question in the context of the SC is there are no partial successes so I can't give an example.  Now a player could decide that was a partial success for himself or herself, but nothing in the rules designates it as such.  If you get home then you succeeded on the SC and as implied above should have youre resources (the men) replenished in some way... if you fail then you've failed and less men becomes part of the failure condition of the SC.</blockquote>

Verification