NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9244707" data-attributes="member: 29398">You can do a mix of these three as well: some specific PC actions either get adjudicated (1) or get their own rolls (2) and the general group also gets a roll (3) to cover off any minor actions or input not big enough to come under 1 or 2.(iI auto-changed the 4 to 1 here because I split the list, annoying.  Pretend it still says 4.)If the DM is calling for individual checks like this, shouldn't they be resolved in isolation?  So for example yes Jocinda succeeds in finding a sheltered campsite and Corach succeeds in catching a few fish in the stream but Brakk fails to find any useful firewood and Petra utterly blows her attempt to forecast the weather.  Tramasine, however, is sure she knows which way the group needs to go once daylight returns tomorrow as she spotted a landmark just before darkness fell.Rather than batching all this together into one overall success or failure, why not play through the ramifications of each aspect?  They've now got a good campsite and some food, and they know where they're going tomorrow, but they've no way to cook that food and no idea what the weather's going to do.  So what do they do now?I've no problem with one player (in character) dominating a scene that the characger is largely designed for.  Here, a Ranger or Druid should be the star.  That's not to say they're the only contributors, though; as with any situation, it's on the players to find ways to insert their characters into the scene.Yes, and also lacks the required granlarity IMO.There is no clear number of rolls needed for success as each roll is treated in isolation of the others.  The end result is most often going to be partial success, as in my by-character example.As for an anticlimatic lockout, doesn't bother me.  Not everything works as planned or intended.To the bolded: so do 1-3 in combination.  I'm not a fan of gamism intruding all that much; and the swinginess of the d20 is largely in the DM's hands in any case, by putting these rolls on a sliding scale of success (e.g. Brakk's roll to find firewood could also bake in what/how much he finds, such that on a high 'success' roll he finds lots, on a narrow 'success' roll he finds enough but it's wet or hard to light, on a narrow 'fail' roll he finds some but not enough to last the night, on a worse 'fail' roll he doesn't even find enough to cook the fish, and only on a very poor roll does he not find any at all).More broadly, this allows one roll to resolve a number of corollary issues simply by putting it on a sliding scale rather than binary pass-fail.  Yes it's a bit GM-fiat-y in that the GM has to come up with this sliding scale pretty much on the fly each time; but that too is a bit realistic in that no two situations are going to be the same anyway.</blockquote>

Verification