Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7448399" data-attributes="member: 6880599"><p>So thanks for trying to clear up what Ovinomancer was unwilling to. (Weather he agrees with you or not I appreciate an attempt)</p><p></p><p>But let me clarify somethings from my replies.</p><p></p><p>1. I did not mistake that Ovinomancer was using critical failures, <strong>I was suggesting that he could</strong> instead of adding punishment to <strong>all</strong> failure. Failure is its own punishment. He said he was working on an Idea and I was suggesting something that is not in the rules, is commonly used already, and has been play tested to a point their is not doubt it is not broken. So their is not reason to come up with a new system from scratch to achieve the basis of his goal unless he just really has too and most player will except critical failures because they already use them on combat.</p><p></p><p>2. I get that he was saying that any failure by additional people doing the same test (some how not a group test) would be a setback, I understand that but I was voicing a concern that if your basically running individual checks instead of group check (or running group checks, my statement not Ovinomancer's) but your not applying that to failure on single checks your going to teach players to only do one individual test and stop working as a team because your creating a threat that only applies to "multiple character doing the same check". Which<strong> I am saying</strong> is punishing group efforts, group check or not. That may not be the intent but unless you apply it to single skill checks its a punishment for the group doing the same thing at the same time as you might expect people to do.</p><p></p><p>3. I disagree with the assessment that one player has a chance to pass and a chance to fail, but two players have a greater chance to pass so should have a greater risk. <strong>The whole point of team work is to reduce your chance of failing</strong> so by adding a mechanic that creates failure or punishment even on success your just punishing team work in my openion. You might have more of a chance at success, but you have two chances for set backs regardless of success which means "setbacks" will happen more often than not because they would occur if the primary fails, the secondary fails or if the both fail,.... the o<strong>nly time you would not have a setback is if both succeed and if that was the case only one person was needed for the test</strong> that means any time anyone "helps" or performs the same check and it would actually be useful... your punishing the group with a setback....</p><p></p><p>So with all that in mind my suggestion was to allow critical failures this also increased the chance of "setback" because the more people who do the same test the more chances to rule a 1, It means you can avoid punishing groups because your not punishing "help" or multiple people doing the same check with a "setback" unless they would not be needed anyway, and you can apply the same standard to a single person doing the test who can still roll a 1 so that "set backs" are not a team work problem the can avoid but just a 5% chance thing of happening to anyone at anytime... that happen to scale with more test roles…. INCUDING the same person trying the same test again a different way.</p><p></p><p>I am reasonably sure Ovinomancer will say "I still don't get it.. infact your worse" ...but that is because I have not actually ever changes what I meant I have just explained it different ways and I have not been able to pull a different meaning from anything he said Ovinomancer though I have tried. It is Ovinomancer's right not to have to clarify and I pushed for it as much as is reasonable to do but at this point I am willing to drop it unless there is some new information provided.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7448399, member: 6880599"] So thanks for trying to clear up what Ovinomancer was unwilling to. (Weather he agrees with you or not I appreciate an attempt) But let me clarify somethings from my replies. 1. I did not mistake that Ovinomancer was using critical failures, [B]I was suggesting that he could[/B] instead of adding punishment to [B]all[/B] failure. Failure is its own punishment. He said he was working on an Idea and I was suggesting something that is not in the rules, is commonly used already, and has been play tested to a point their is not doubt it is not broken. So their is not reason to come up with a new system from scratch to achieve the basis of his goal unless he just really has too and most player will except critical failures because they already use them on combat. 2. I get that he was saying that any failure by additional people doing the same test (some how not a group test) would be a setback, I understand that but I was voicing a concern that if your basically running individual checks instead of group check (or running group checks, my statement not Ovinomancer's) but your not applying that to failure on single checks your going to teach players to only do one individual test and stop working as a team because your creating a threat that only applies to "multiple character doing the same check". Which[B] I am saying[/B] is punishing group efforts, group check or not. That may not be the intent but unless you apply it to single skill checks its a punishment for the group doing the same thing at the same time as you might expect people to do. 3. I disagree with the assessment that one player has a chance to pass and a chance to fail, but two players have a greater chance to pass so should have a greater risk. [B]The whole point of team work is to reduce your chance of failing[/B] so by adding a mechanic that creates failure or punishment even on success your just punishing team work in my openion. You might have more of a chance at success, but you have two chances for set backs regardless of success which means "setbacks" will happen more often than not because they would occur if the primary fails, the secondary fails or if the both fail,.... the o[B]nly time you would not have a setback is if both succeed and if that was the case only one person was needed for the test[/B] that means any time anyone "helps" or performs the same check and it would actually be useful... your punishing the group with a setback.... So with all that in mind my suggestion was to allow critical failures this also increased the chance of "setback" because the more people who do the same test the more chances to rule a 1, It means you can avoid punishing groups because your not punishing "help" or multiple people doing the same check with a "setback" unless they would not be needed anyway, and you can apply the same standard to a single person doing the test who can still roll a 1 so that "set backs" are not a team work problem the can avoid but just a 5% chance thing of happening to anyone at anytime... that happen to scale with more test roles…. INCUDING the same person trying the same test again a different way. I am reasonably sure Ovinomancer will say "I still don't get it.. infact your worse" ...but that is because I have not actually ever changes what I meant I have just explained it different ways and I have not been able to pull a different meaning from anything he said Ovinomancer though I have tried. It is Ovinomancer's right not to have to clarify and I pushed for it as much as is reasonable to do but at this point I am willing to drop it unless there is some new information provided. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?
Top