Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6283556" data-attributes="member: 14506">It seems like the interesting thing about some tasks is not the binary pass/fail but instead the pass without a hitch or pass with some complications. This is very much a modern game design feel. Is the story more interesting if a lock picking attempt fails? No, but it is more interesting if the character breaks the lock, jams it, breaks the door jam, takes a really long time, needs to research the manufacturer, makes a lot of noise, etc. So, not really interesting that the trained lock picker opens it or not. The interesting part is any troubles added onto the task.So rather than take 20, why not just say you do it when you fail the roll (as long as you could make the roll in the first place) but you have to accept the troubles the DM adds on to the attempt. You could add on a whole subsystem to the game that covers this type of check and include ways for players to chime in to speak to failures to gain a bonus of some type they could spend at a later time (if accepted by the DM).This is a system I would want to play with but not something a middle schooler would be interested in likely. My vote for a base game is stripped down, bells and whistles removed, Roll a d20 add your bonus and apply it to your DC with a pass and fail and possibly a save to catch your fall or avoid the trap you sprung or fatigue you incurred. That's it. Advantage/disadvantage actually complicate that simplicity too...Then in the narrative play style add my failure meaning: you succeed but....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadrik, post: 6283556, member: 14506"] It seems like the interesting thing about some tasks is not the binary pass/fail but instead the pass without a hitch or pass with some complications. This is very much a modern game design feel. Is the story more interesting if a lock picking attempt fails? No, but it is more interesting if the character breaks the lock, jams it, breaks the door jam, takes a really long time, needs to research the manufacturer, makes a lot of noise, etc. So, not really interesting that the trained lock picker opens it or not. The interesting part is any troubles added onto the task. So rather than take 20, why not just say you do it when you fail the roll (as long as you could make the roll in the first place) but you have to accept the troubles the DM adds on to the attempt. You could add on a whole subsystem to the game that covers this type of check and include ways for players to chime in to speak to failures to gain a bonus of some type they could spend at a later time (if accepted by the DM). This is a system I would want to play with but not something a middle schooler would be interested in likely. My vote for a base game is stripped down, bells and whistles removed, Roll a d20 add your bonus and apply it to your DC with a pass and fail and possibly a save to catch your fall or avoid the trap you sprung or fatigue you incurred. That's it. Advantage/disadvantage actually complicate that simplicity too... Then in the narrative play style add my failure meaning: you succeed but.... [/QUOTE]

Verification