Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 9513197" data-attributes="member: 9053">There definitely can be consequence we (and by that I mean I as player/GM and now designer) don't care about. A lot of it is multiple rolls to effectively do the same thing. I have played in many games where you had to make stealth checks and, against all odds, the entire party made it. Even the clunky paladin. And then the DM just said &quot;okay, that gets you here, so let's make another round of checks...&quot; It was effectively rolling to see when you would fail. Roll enough checks and even the best thief will miss one. I guess I compare that to a game like Blades where you start a Score by making a Positioning Check that shows you how much of those other rolls you can just skip.I think in 2024, with so many games moving away from the philosophy of making a ton of checks, you might be able to get away from the &quot;Stakes&quot; requirement. I'm keeping it there because when we discuss this issue with respect to D&amp;D you can clearly see that there isn't a consensus within the gaming community as a whole. I want to be up front about what I don't want to see as a designer.Edited to add: if you're not me and playing my game, you can feel free to ignore this and roll away, the system just won't really help you out.I didn't get into it, but when you make a Check in my game, you go through an entire framing process where you describe Intent, Method and Consequences, so everyone knows what is on the line when you roll. I was amused at the new Blades in the Dark supplement that just came out because the changes to the task system are sort of what I do. And those changes have been controversial even with Blades GMs.Hopefully that makes sense. I think overall I get what you're saying and most of the time you're right. I just want to be up front and tell GMs how the game is designed and let the players know too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteveC, post: 9513197, member: 9053"] There definitely can be consequence we (and by that I mean I as player/GM and now designer) don't care about. A lot of it is multiple rolls to effectively do the same thing. I have played in many games where you had to make stealth checks and, against all odds, the entire party made it. Even the clunky paladin. And then the DM just said "okay, that gets you here, so let's make another round of checks..." It was effectively rolling to see when you would fail. Roll enough checks and even the best thief will miss one. I guess I compare that to a game like Blades where you start a Score by making a Positioning Check that shows you how much of those other rolls you can just skip. I think in 2024, with so many games moving away from the philosophy of making a ton of checks, you might be able to get away from the "Stakes" requirement. I'm keeping it there because when we discuss this issue with respect to D&D you can clearly see that there isn't a consensus within the gaming community as a whole. I want to be up front about what I don't want to see as a designer. [I]Edited to add[/I]: if you're not me and playing my game, you can feel free to ignore this and roll away, the system just won't really help you out. I didn't get into it, but when you make a Check in my game, you go through an entire framing process where you describe Intent, Method and Consequences, so everyone knows what is on the line when you roll. I was amused at the new Blades in the Dark supplement that just came out because the changes to the task system are sort of what I do. And those changes have been controversial even with Blades GMs. Hopefully that makes sense. I think overall I get what you're saying and most of the time you're right. I just want to be up front and tell GMs how the game is designed and let the players know too. [/QUOTE]

Verification