Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7511212" data-attributes="member: 6775031">No, overcoming the obstacle is not a possible result of failing to meet the DC. Overcoming the obstacle means you succeeded on the check. Progress with setback is one of the two possibilities for adjudicating a failed check.The thing is, simply taking the third option doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not the case that a DM who chooses to resolve the check as progress-with-setback has solved the problem, because there are no rules anywhere for what &quot;progress&quot; and &quot;setback&quot; are. The DM first has to choose to resolve the check as progress-with-setback (instead of choosing simple failure), and then they have to take the additional steps of figuring out what &quot;progress&quot; and &quot;setback&quot; mean in this situation; and they must define both of them in such a way as to prevent the character from trying again, or else you haven't actually solved anything, because they're still going to escape in two minutes. The thing is, if your setback prevents you from proceeding, then you haven't actually made progress. I don't know that it's logically possible for progress-with-setback to prevent someone from eventually succeeding, unless you maliciously twist the definition of &quot;progress&quot; against their intended spirit. (The spirit of progress-with-setback is that you break the manacles, but you sprain something, or alert a guard or something. It was a rule that they pulled over from narrative type games, but then never did anything with; much like Inspiration.)Progress-with-setback may be a core rule, but it's the most poorly-defined guideline in the book. It's basically just the designers admitting defeat, and acknowledging that their numbers don't make any sense, and then putting it on the DM to try and invent their own explanations as to why.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7511212, member: 6775031"] No, overcoming the obstacle is not a possible result of failing to meet the DC. Overcoming the obstacle means you succeeded on the check. Progress with setback is one of the two possibilities for adjudicating a failed check. The thing is, simply taking the third option doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not the case that a DM who chooses to resolve the check as progress-with-setback has solved the problem, because there are no rules anywhere for what "progress" and "setback" are. The DM first has to choose to resolve the check as progress-with-setback (instead of choosing simple failure), and then they have to take the additional steps of figuring out what "progress" and "setback" mean in this situation; and they must define both of them in such a way as to prevent the character from trying again, or else you haven't actually solved anything, because they're still going to escape in two minutes. The thing is, if your setback prevents you from proceeding, then you haven't actually made progress. I don't know that it's logically possible for progress-with-setback to prevent someone from eventually succeeding, unless you maliciously twist the definition of "progress" against their intended spirit. (The [I]spirit[/I] of progress-with-setback is that you break the manacles, but you sprain something, or alert a guard or something. It was a rule that they pulled over from narrative type games, but then never did anything with; much like Inspiration.) Progress-with-setback may be a core rule, but it's the most poorly-defined guideline in the book. It's basically just the designers admitting defeat, and acknowledging that their numbers don't make any sense, and then putting it on the DM to try and invent their own explanations as to why. [/QUOTE]

Verification