Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9878293" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I do think this is the source of the scope problem; is the game about gambling and spinning up reactions to the results of that gambling (either emphasizing real stakes, or creating the appearance/sensation of stakes, even when low rolling doesn't really impact forward momentum) or is it about managing resources/risk to overcome problems?What isn't immediately clear is that the design of problems themselves needs to be different between those scenarios. If you're gambling, you can make the scope of any action flexible; the climb check can be the whole wall, part of the wall, a whole mountain, etc. What you're actually doing is setting the parameters you're betting on, and the differences between a single big roll and iterated rolling is just a matter of the precise probabilities and maybe the aesthetic experience at the table.If you're doing the resource expenditure/problem solving model, that flexibility goes away, and you cannot make "climb this wall" an interesting problem without expanding it. The wall has to be taller than a single check's allowance at the least, and/or be surrounded by other features that influence the player's action calculus. A problem that is defeated by a single "auto-win" feature or even just a single check around 80% isn't a problem, it's at best part of a problem.I think most of the issues identified with skills in this thread come down to trying to move problems from one kind of game to another without fully appreciating how the gameplay loop needs to influence their design. We're jumbling too many tools that aren't all turned toward the same purpose together, on both the obstacle (adventure/encounter etc.) design side, and on the player facing skill design side.</blockquote>

Verification