Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7599580" data-attributes="member: 996">It's also just kinda in-your-face that doubling a 5% chance of success is equivalent to a +1, while a 'mere' 50%-increase in a 50/50 shot at success is like a +5.+5 being a lot more than +1 and all.I still don't see how that's really 'flattening,' either way.&nbsp; I'd expect 'flattening' to mean that chances of success become more similar, so there's some point they'd gravitate towards when the mechanic is invoked... and wouldn't that mean a larger absolute bonus to very small chance of success - and, counter-intuitively, a penalty to a very high chance of success?&nbsp;Sure, failure in D&amp;D has often been a matter of nothing happening, unless the DM felt like being mean, then something bad happened (thought, in that case, quite possibly without a check, or regardless of success failure - &quot;oh, too bad you successfully opened that door, there's [insert form of certain death] on the other side!&quot;), and nothing really meant nothing, as in play just ground to a halt.Thus, 'fail forward' sounded like a real innovation - or abomination - when it finally made it's way into D&amp;D.&nbsp;Even once they were fixed up, SCs remained too abstract to be really compelling, they needed to be dressed up or filled out (into 'mini-games' in their own right is how I've put it before), to really deliver.&quot;quasi&quot; indeed. The key in 5e is that players get enough hard numbers and reasonable-sounding names of skills &amp; abilities on their character sheet to create a sense that something is being simulated - while the DM is free to make stuff happen that's actually fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7599580, member: 996"] It's also just kinda in-your-face that doubling a 5% chance of success is equivalent to a +1, while a 'mere' 50%-increase in a 50/50 shot at success is like a +5. +5 being a lot more than +1 and all. I still don't see how that's really 'flattening,' either way. I'd expect 'flattening' to mean that chances of success become more similar, so there's some point they'd gravitate towards when the mechanic is invoked... and wouldn't that mean a larger absolute bonus to very small chance of success - and, counter-intuitively, a penalty to a very high chance of success? Sure, failure in D&D has often been a matter of nothing happening, unless the DM felt like being mean, then something bad happened (thought, in that case, quite possibly without a check, or regardless of success failure - "oh, too bad you successfully opened that door, there's [insert form of certain death] on the other side!"), and nothing really meant nothing, as in play just ground to a halt. Thus, 'fail forward' sounded like a real innovation - or abomination - when it finally made it's way into D&D. Even once they were fixed up, SCs remained too abstract to be really compelling, they needed to be dressed up or filled out (into 'mini-games' in their own right is how I've put it before), to really deliver. "quasi" indeed. The key in 5e is that players get enough hard numbers and reasonable-sounding names of skills & abilities on their character sheet to create a sense that something is being simulated - while the DM is free to make stuff happen that's actually fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification