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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6284776" data-attributes="member: 23935">Even in stories protagonists sometimes fail and are forced to rethink goals, objectives, and future tactics to account for that failure.  Since I run RPGs less like a story and more like a world inhabited by the PCs, failure should be a possible expected outcome -- especially if facing a situation where the underlying conflict is static (i.e. a SC such as "Find the Island" -- if you fail, you didn't find it!).As for the  probability, I don't see it as a dice pool system -- it's more of a markov chain.  The danger lies in the facts the probability of final success depends on the probability of success at each discrete step -- and that choice is out of the hands of the designer.  I can't comment on changes introduced later as I'm unwilling to buy the material just to see changes in a system I don't use.  I didn't see the intention you describe.  A complex difficult SC seemed it was supposed to be harder to achieve than a simple one in the original DMG not just consume more table time.  In fact table time is quite constrained since the framework of X successes vs. Y failures doesn't provide much variation at all.  If the expectation was a greater emphasis on the table time, the difficulty of each check would increase as would number of failures allowed rather than the number of successes required.The framework is missing is a mechanism to mitigate or negate a failure so failing a check becomes a big deal.Suppose a SC is presented to change the king's mind on a matter of policy.  The challenge is established as a six success before three failure requirement.What is an appropriate result if there are 0 failures? 1 failure? 2 failures?  All count as a successful result so the king's mind is changed, but what level of consequence is appropriate for the accumulated failures?  How many failures should the group expect from the challenge?  Can the players know in advance?  How can those stakes be presented? Can the accumulated consequences mean the group considers the event a failure even though their original goal was achieved as a sort of Cadmean or Pyrrhic victory or should that be restricted to an overall failure? On the reverse side, what happens if the PCs fail, but have achieved 5 successes?  Should there be a difference compared to if they failed to achieve any successes at all?  If there is a difference, can the group consider the outcome a 'win' even though the original goal wasn't achieved or should that be restricted to an overall success at the challenge?I find that solution underwhelming since the PCs need not react to the opposition, but can (and probably should) continue with their own strategy with the highest discrete probability of success.  I like the concept of skill challenges.  In many ways they are a formalism of many of the things I was already doing for results simulation.  I find the framework is stifling since it places the PCs as the only active actors in the scene.  My version has frameworks for PCs, multiple groups working independently on mutually exclusive goals, and groups working in direct competition.</blockquote>

Verification