Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9244843" data-attributes="member: 29398">That would be situationally dependent.&nbsp; In my example of the party trying to make camp, in the fiction all those things would be happening more or less at the same time, with the party comparing notes once they'd all done those things and determining their next move based on the individual results of their attempted actions (they've got a good campsite, food (and water, remember those fish came from a creek), and a path; but no firewood and are at the mercy of the weather).Your example here seems to indicate a sequential series of obstacles where one must be overcome in order to even get to the next; as in you have to bypass locked door X in order to get to trap Y, only after which do you get to locked door Z, following which is difficult climb ZZ where things go sideways.&nbsp; Here, clearly failure at any one step means you're probably not going any further...which is probably why the defenders put all those steps there in the first place. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In either case, bundling all these elements into a single-resolution mechanism IMO just isn't granular enough to do justice to the situation.My take on that is that the spotlight is there not to be shared, but to be competed for.Well, it ensures team play only if the group acts like a team, which IME is never a safe assumption to make. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9244843, member: 29398"] That would be situationally dependent. In my example of the party trying to make camp, in the fiction all those things would be happening more or less at the same time, with the party comparing notes once they'd all done those things and determining their next move based on the individual results of their attempted actions (they've got a good campsite, food (and water, remember those fish came from a creek), and a path; but no firewood and are at the mercy of the weather). Your example here seems to indicate a sequential series of obstacles where one must be overcome in order to even get to the next; as in you have to bypass locked door X in order to get to trap Y, only after which do you get to locked door Z, following which is difficult climb ZZ where things go sideways. Here, clearly failure at any one step means you're probably not going any further...which is probably why the defenders put all those steps there in the first place. :) In either case, bundling all these elements into a single-resolution mechanism IMO just isn't granular enough to do justice to the situation. My take on that is that the spotlight is there not to be shared, but to be competed for. Well, it ensures team play only if the group acts like a team, which IME is never a safe assumption to make. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification