Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9519387" data-attributes="member: 71699">I take D&D to care about the intent of the player. For instance, here's a sequence we never seePlayer: I want to climb the wallDM: Okay, roll Strength (Athletics)Player: 14+5 that's 19DM: That's some real nice climbing you are doing therePlayer: So I've reached the top of the wall?DM: No, no, you're just climbing really nicely (cares only about how well the character executes the action)Player: ... (expected to resolve their intent: reaching the top of the wall)Where "consequences resolution" comes into this is after the first I, so that it's ICIEEC by which I mean it's Intent Consequences-indicated Initiate Execute Effect Consequences-pay-out (as part of the effect on failure, which opens the door to succeed-with-complication.) When the first C returns empty, for type B no roll is triggered (just run through the remaining IEE.)Player: I want to climb the wallDM: Considers whether damage from a fall would really matter here, and if there are other possible consequences... like those guards chasing the character!Player: 14+5 that's 19DM: You scramble swiftly up the wall Player: Phew, so I've escaped the guards?DM: For now, yes. They're at the bottom looking up...A failure there might be narratedPlayer: 4+5 that's 9DM: Putting in a burst of speed one of the guards is upon you before you can even scrabble for a handhold!Anyway, on balance, the three you list lean into type B, possibly. There's a style of play available here where rolls are fewer and scene setting is given more attention, so that consequences are properly in view.AW is type A, which goes like this IIEEC, so if the roll is invoked by the intent and initiation, it will yield consequences on failure. There's no need to check the situation is ripe. Maybe that's why it looks different.</blockquote>

Verification