Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8640047" data-attributes="member: 71699">5e uses "narrates" in the basic pattern. Others have argued that narrative only plausibly counts as narrative if it is meaningful. Encouragement toward meaningful outcomes is found in the 5e game text.I sometimes use multiple checks. Generally I think it is better to play as far as you can without checks, and call for the check only when things really are at the crucial point of resolution. Perhaps that is why I don't feel the same disconnect between players and resolution of situation. The situation is only resolved when the players resolve it, on terms we've "negotiated" between us. That might involve one or a few checks.5e has some interesting nuance in its ability check resolution. We see<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Standing scores - where the check will be compared against multiple DCs until one defeats it. A common example is hiding, but also tying knots and crafting locks.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gauges - where the result indicates a degree of success using a formula or scale. An example is carousing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Passive scores - these neither succeed nor fail, but set a level to be contested. The common example is perception.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Direct results - this is the most common case, where the check is against a target.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Contests - this differs from any of the above through a draw resulting in no progress.</li> </ul>I'm not certain incremental success/failure is to the benefit of the game. I feel like the designers should tackle first better nuance of result, to make checks more expressive. There should at least be the now typical success, success with a complication, and failure.</blockquote>

Verification