The Gaming Den

Doesn't sound to me like that clock mechanic involves pretending the DM isn't just making stuff up. "The DM arbitrarily decides how long the clock is" was even in the description, essentially. It's got all the dramatic tension potential of a 4e skill challenge

You're right, I'm sorry, they aren't pretending.

As I’ve seen it play out in BiTD,

The purpose of the clock is directly related to the mission, the amount of tension the MC wants, and the degree of risk. The MC explains what the clock means and it’s outcome.

So if the scene is stealthing through a heavily fortified bandit camp, the clock might have 4 tick boxes.

If the scene is stealthing through a warehouse with drunk or poorly paid guards, the clock might have 6 or 8 ticks.

On the first failure, the MC says, “I’m starting a clock and it represents alerting the guards.”

To be honest, I know less about 4E than 5E and I barely know anything about 5E.

So the PCs can fail a roll but it isn’t a binary failure. Maybe the party fails one stealth check, but they do some action that fulfills their mission and the leave before needing more stealthing.

And then, maybe the MC uses the clock to determine if the NPCs can gather any clues about which adventurers stealthed them.

On my stealth minigame there's basically 3 possibilities: pass, fail, or alerted. Alerted is when you almost succeed, but not quite. So guards think they heard or saw something or maybe a sensor is tripped and they need to go check it out. It gives them a temporary bonus to detect and a reason to focus on searching, which makes it likely they will succeed if they get close enough to the stealthy character (since the character was apparently barely getting by as it was). So the stealthy character needs to either get outta there, find a good hiding spot to lay low, or get some sort of distraction to draw away the searchers.

erik wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:14 am

On my stealth minigame there's basically 3 possibilities: pass, fail, or alerted. Alerted is when you almost succeed, but not quite. So guards think they heard or saw something or maybe a sensor is tripped and they need to go check it out. It gives them a temporary bonus to detect and a reason to focus on searching, which makes it likely they will succeed if they get close enough to the stealthy character (since the character was apparently barely getting by as it was). So the stealthy character needs to either get outta there, find a good hiding spot to lay low, or get some sort of distraction to draw away the searchers.

Ah, the Ape Escape approach. Classic.

There is some thrill to having the GM also have not totally predictable gambling elements... but then they decide what happens when the 1d4 turns are up anyways

I guess it's like an oracle spilling some intestines gives a prophecy more texture than them just stating a thing behind a counter

OgreBattle wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:42 am

I guess it's like an oracle spilling some intestines gives a prophecy more texture than them just stating a thing behind a counter

My my, how visceral.

There's a Troll feat or some option like that, allows them to cast Augury by gutting themselves, reading the organs, and healing to normal.
I shit you not.

JonSetanta wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:13 pm

deaddmwalking wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:53 pm

If the TN stayed the same and you get a +4 bonus to your roll & rerolls, you'd be 82% likely to get a 14 or better (which would become an 18). To me that still sounds like a pretty big risk of failure if you think the character OUGHT to be able to succeed. With carrying capacity, you don't make a check to lift something you can carry - you just look at the weight and your Strength and determine whether it's under your max load. Maybe that's too much work - a check is easier - but it might be more accurate if you did something like: If your score is equal to the TN, you auto succeed; if your score is less than the TN you can roll to succeed.

Based on your concern about rolling unnecessary dice, having someone make 4 rolls to succeed at one check seems...unproductive.

Keeping the bonus + rerolls does seem better after your example.

What about the Skill Benchmark concept? That could easily apply to ability score checks as well, just subtract the skill bonus.

Or just let everyone Take 10.

For the record, the 20+ resolution mechanic was brought up years ago:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53786

Thank you. I never saw that thread until now

There are differences between my suggestion and yours:
Yours - roll xd20s, use highest
Mine - roll 1d20, then spend a resource to get a reroll on a fail 1 per turn

Either way,, they would work .. if you apply it to a game that isn't 3e or similar.
You'd have to limit the number of stats and additional modifiers to make sure you're not rolling 10d20, or keeping track of 6 different subpools to spend.