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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9087715" data-attributes="member: 82106">And this is why we don't have conflict resolution mechanics invoked when nothing is at stake! If every choice leads to the same place, then the rules of pretty much all narrativist games I know of, and many others too, simply say "don't bother with rules here, just move forward." I mean, even the 5e DMG states this as, at least optionally, a criteria for checks to happen or not. If all approaches to opening your door lead to the same outcome, NONE of these systems recommends what you are talking about doing here.As for the "consequences" part. I would expect that the fictional situation would be structured so as to make it explicit which 'criminal organization' you are establishing a relationship with BEFORE the situation is established. Like in BitD you would acquire this as a resource (maybe in a flashback, but still established before any conflict). I can see a D&D game where you have a class feature to 'call in a favor' and it also operates in a similar fashion within the structure of play (IE only invoked at the time of use, with fictional consequences being somewhat retroactive). Its a technique that can work in any game, but certainly having it be 'after the fact' of carrying out the task is unusual at least. I wouldn't consider these things 'stakes', normally. They're costs, but more resource expenditure. Now, BitD DOES allow for calling it stakes, by using Devil's Bargain mechanics (gain an extra die in your pool in return for a complication) but again you choose the bargain BEFORE any resolution happens!</blockquote>

Verification