Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7445859" data-attributes="member: 6880599">Wow that escalated quickly. I apparently wrote in such a way that it could be misinterpreted as an attack or something. Please know that was not my intent I am just trying to have a conversation. I am going to try to break your statements to what I pulled out. Maybe you can explain it so that I can understand or I can explain myself better. Good luck.I read this as failure have consequences, the example I used was bad things happen on critical fails. My point was that this statement does not require it to be a group or help test so it could be a single test and a solution like critical fails is not reliant on the help test.Sure success has no failure... I think we are tracking here.So if you have a group test (I will use stealth) and someone critically fails, even thought the group as a whole succeeds the critical failure might mean that while a normal stealth test would succeed due to half or more succeeding in the test, the one who critically fails gets spotted anyway the fell down and made a huge noise. So the the group is hidden butt that one individual is not even thought the group test was a success. That could happen with a single test too, in that one person might fail the test and be spotted by a single guard who might have called for aid or engaged him, but due to a critical fail knocked over a tent pole causing the tent to collapse that his friends were hiding behind revealing them all while moving away.Right, using stealth again, the more people fail the less likely to succeed in the test. That is its own setback. Multiple critical failures might mean that a few of them are spotted despite a group pass or that since enough of them failed that the group no longer passes they are not only aware they are their but they have caused so much noise that people who don't even have line of sight are stepping out to see whats going on.Sure, and my intent was just to give you a point of consideration. Per your stated goal and how you described it, just doing critical failures (which are technically not in the book but commonly used "homebrew" due to misinterpretation anyway) you could achieve what you stated and described in your example. My only caution was that if you use critical failures, that you use them all the time not just for group tests or help actions. Nothing about what you described as I read it precludes it and if you don't treat them the same players will only do solo tests to avoid critical failures seeing them as punishment you only use in group tests. That said, you could re-invent the wheel, it that is all you want to do. I am just saying their is a common home brew practice that does what your suggesting. It also scales up the risk in groups because the more players you have the more chance in a single test to role a 1. You could do it on failures in general but I think it would make group tests "setbacks" so common you will have a "group" that will want to always work alone.If you think I am so far of the mark... Please give me a specific example of where I am wrong. I am curious for multiple reasons now what it is your saying I don't understand.</blockquote>

Verification