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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7449123" data-attributes="member: 6880599"><p>We do tend to be cautious because our GM will striate up kill us and if we have a test we REALLY want to pass it because the fails lead to bad things. If your saying your in game or know people in games where having common damage or other setback is not an issue on top of the risk of failing the test to a point that they aren't worried about it... sure... but then It seems less important that they work together anyway. I agree their are different style and their can be one where this method is fine. I do feel like in general GMs are trying to make their tests important to raise the same tension your talking about. If they are just putting risk reward beyond the risk of failing and the reward of success... sure but its redundant, you don't need a standard of "setbacks" for tests for example, if you fail to disarm a trap it goes off.. you don't have to add an additional setback to it, you add the same risk or more by making it a lethal trap providing the same or greater risk, as far as reward... I don't even think its a requirement that risk come with reward. Sometimes risk is just risk. Sometimes you reword players for turning left instead of right with no risk, because you put the treasure room on the left and the exit on the right and right turn means they just left without the treasure so I am not sure that for the sake of "risk vs reward" is actually a viable reason for what your saying. If you opening a door to sleep in an old abandon shed to get away from rain and do a test to open the rusty door...the risk is you get wet... the reward is you get less wet... I don't think you need to add a setback that your hand slips and punches the wall just because someone helped you. I am not saying your wrong in that someone somewhere can do this and have fun. It just seems to me you can achieve all the same intent without it.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification