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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9165338" data-attributes="member: 8461">This is true, and to my mind speaks to a deeper issue with the design philosophy around introducing resolutions for particular challenges in the game.One thing that comes up repeatedly with regard to D&D is that mysteries are often binary in their presentation; either the PCs have something at their disposal which can completely negate the challenge ("I cast speak with dead on the corpse and ask him who killed him") or they don't have what they need and can't progress (i.e. only one party member can check for tracks, and flubs their skill roll).The problem is often seen that trying to alleviate the former can often lead to the latter, where preemptive means of making sure the PCs are equipped to handle certain things that come up in the adventure over-correct in how much versatility they offer, essentially negating challenges rather than preparing the PCs to face them.At least on paper, there are several ways around this, though they all have their own issues. For instance, reducing things from automatically working to offering a check (e.g. knock allows for a roll to succeed, rather than automatically unlocking the door), which has issues of putting the PCs right back to square one if the check fails, to having the GM preemptively allow for multiple resolutions to problems the PCs encounter (e.g. the popular <a href="https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule" target="_blank">three clue rule</a>), but which then puts a heavier prep burden on the GM.As with so many things, there are no right answers here, only preferences regarding ease, style, and numerous other factors.</blockquote>

Verification