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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9194840" data-attributes="member: 70468">See below regarding how consequences are incorporated into the resolution process.Players can do a few thing to mitigate consequences. That’s currently WIP. In previous iterations, you could sacrifice or spend things to gain bonuses to the roll (e.g., extra dice). For an example, see <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/commentary-thread-for-that-“describe-your-game-in-five-words”-thread.682741/post-9084104" target="_blank">post #275</a> in the five words commentary thread. I expect that will remain in the next iteration in some form. You can also opt to resist a consequence. When you do that, you take stress and make the check against taking the stress while gaining a result equivalent to a 1-degree success.A 1-degree success is also called a “complete success”. Below that is 0-degree, which is a “mixed success”. If you get any degree of success, the referee cannot negate that success. A 0-degree success though comes with a consequence, which you can resist. Failure is typically two consequences or one big consequence that can be partially resisted. If the PC takes the consequence, it cannot negate the success. Success must be reliable for players to be able to trust it and reason about how they want to approach a situation.Currently, I’m not entirely sure how degrees will be calculated. They will probably be based on margin. A 0-degree success would be something like any result with a margin of −2 to +0, 1-degree would be +1 to +3, and so on. I don’t know how the math of that looks though. That needs evaluated, and I haven’t had a chance to do that yet, but I hope to have that done for our next session in early December.Teamwork is also potent. You can help someone out, giving them a bonus based on your degree of success. You can also work together, which allows the group to roll and take the best result. When working together, one of the characters is designated the lead. They have the choice of taking a penalty to the result for each failure or taking stress to buy off the failures.That’s pretty much what I do. Consequences are foregrounded as part of the resolution process. Of course, obvious ones don’t have to be. If you’re jumping across slippery rocks to cross a pool of lava, slipping into the lava is an obvious risk. Everything else should be established though. While that does help with risk assessment, it’s also meant to stop the referee from pulling BS consequences out of seemingly nowhere. From an immersion perspective, one can look at it as elaborating on the intuition characters would have from actually being there.[HR][/HR]I should note that complications are different from consequences. A complication is a transient factor like trying to navigate in a blizzard or to keep your balance on a wagon that’s gone out of control. If you can do something to negate the complication, it should stop being a factor in the difficulty. That’s the theory, anyway. I haven’t done any of the math yet because I’ve been occupied with other things.Ideally, the difficulty should be evident from the description of the situation. The players should be able to assess it themselves, and that should match what the referee determines. As a check (to make sure everyone shares an understanding), the process of determining the difficulty should be done openly. If the PCs want to tail someone through a large crowd in the fog, we should all be able to step through the process of starting from base X, adding scale S, and complication C to get the difficulty for the check.</blockquote>

Verification