Rewarding The Risks

Something Different

Hello everyone, due to joys of moving, I’ve decided to take a step back from my weekly flavour filled ranting this week to share with you all a little mechanic that has improved my game tremendously. I am going to assume you are aware of Chatty DM’s “Say Yes, But…” philosophy. With this notion in mind I have been letting my players run amok and off course for a long time. Everything they have asked to do, and everything they have verbally dreaded has been accepted and used in the game. Although even with this freedom I started to feel restricted with the pass or fail outcomes I had available to me when dealing with the players crazy plans or heroic actions. That is when I decided to employ a risk reward mechanic within my game. The Risk/Reward mechanic requires d% (2d10’s or a d100), a little improvisation and whole lot of fun.

Your Risk, Everyone’s Reward

If you have ever thought that Pass or Fail was not a broad enough scale to cover the amount of scenarios that might occur from your players actions. The Risk Reward mechanic offers a total of 6 categories into which your player’s actions may fall:

Spectacular: A miraculous achievement, through either undoubted skill or blind luck, so spectacular that it not only improves the character’s situation, but also the situation of the entire party.

Amazing: Completing an objective so easily and with such skill that there are no possible negatives in the outcome.

Pass: Achieving the objective with ease and without hassle, in just the right way that nothing detrimental or overly rewarding will happen to the party.

Fail: Achieving the objective even after a series of mishaps and stressful situations, the task may be completed, but it was done very poorly.

Awful: Failing to achieve the objective through a mistake or unforeseen circumstance that hinders or alters the party’s progress.

Horrible: Failing an objective so badly that the outcome negatively affects the entire group.

With these 6 categories expanding upon the initial Pass or Fail scenarios, I have been able to allow my players to achieve heroic and unbelievable actions (Killing a Elder Dragon in a single blow comes to mind), as well as watch them fail so miserably that it changed the whole course of the game in a single roll. The most enjoyable part for both my players and myself is knowing that no matter what idea they have at the table, this mechanic can adjust to accommodate it. With this freedom of action instilled in their minds, I have had the joy of watching some of my most cautious and withdrawn players speak up and offer their ideas with the confidence that no matter what their idea is; there is possibility it will not only work, but they know that I, the DM will accept their idea and let the dice decide the severity of the outcome.

How To Use The Risk Reward System

To use the Risk/Reward mechanic, you simply assign the 6 categories into a bracket within the range of a d% (I prefer d% for my own inexplicable reasons, but a d20, d12 or even a d6 could work for you).

The Risk/Reward brackets are as follow:

Spectacular: 00 – 14 (15%)

Awesome: 15 – 29 (15%)

Pass: 30 – 49 (20%)

Fail: 50 – 69 (20%)

Awful: 70 – 84 (15%)

Horrible: 85 – 99 (15%)

You might have noticed that the lower the d% score the better the result, feel free to swap this around but I find with 100 represented by 00, it is easy to just use lower scores as better results. Feel free to swap this around if it suits you.

When a player asks me if they can do something not covered by the rules, something seemingly impossible or even something that seems ridiculous and whimsical, I apply the Risk/Reward system. I make some quick adjustments to the starting 50% pass/fail mark, and then get them to roll. Personally I like to inform my players of their chances before they roll so they have an idea of the risks they are taking.

The adjustments I make are as follows:

The initial starting point of 50%, plus or minus a percentage that represents the difficulty of their task, plus a percentage amount if they are using any Skills, Powers or Feats, then finally I add on a percentage amount if I find their idea particularly cool. If the final percentage, lets say 65% is the adjusted starting point for their Risk/Reward roll they make, they enter the pass bracket at 64% and fail at 65%.

For example, my warrior says he wants to scale a the three story tavern and then jump from the roof to tackle the Young Red Dragon mid-flight, making it crash to the ground. The starting point is 50% but the task itself is pretty much impossible so I take off 20% (bring it down to 30%). The warrior says he is using his Acrobatics and Athletics plus a daily power to help him in his task, so I add 15% (up to 45%). I think the idea is cool and outside the box so I add an a “cool” bonus of 10% (up to 55%). The player rolls his d% and depending on the result the outcome is determined.

A Spectacular result (00 – 19) would see the Warrior leaping wildly from the building, tackling the dragon mid-flight and crashing to the ground with a thunderous explosion of soil and cobblestones, bloodying the beast and dazing it until the start of the dragons next turn while the warrior emerges from the dust and debris without a scratch.

An Awesome result (20 – 34) would see the Warrior leaping from the building, tackling the Red Dragon and sending them both crashing to the ground below, leaving the beast bloodied but not dazed, while the Warrior quickly returns to his allies.

A Pass result (35 – 54) would have the warrior jump from the building and collide with the dragon, dealing normal damage and sending the beast to the ground while he lands next to it.

A Fail (055 – 074) would see the Warrior landing upon the Dragons back with normal damage and being stuck upon the beasts back while it stayed in the air.

An Awful result (75 – 89) would see the Warrior leap wildly from the building only to miss the Dragon completely and land awkwardly upon the cobblestones, and the Warrior would be dazed until the start of his/her next turn.

Finally a Horrible result (90 – 99) would see the Dragon catching the falling warrior within its talons, dealing normal damage from the Dragon’s melee attack, followed by the Red Dragon throwing the warrior at his allies and launching a searing burst of flaming breath straight behind the flailing body of the Warrior as he collides with the rest of his allies.

All Roads Lead To Rome

One of the problems I initially faced when I implemented this system was that with their creativity at max and armed with the knowledge that they could achieve anything they wanted, my players would often overcome detailed and meticulously planned battles before they even started, or bypass a series of obstacles, plot points and difficulties through unique ideas and lucky rolls. Instead of stifling their ideas or removing the mechanic they all seemed to be enjoying so much I implanted a fiendish solution. The ‘All Roads Lead To Rome’ solution. If my players skip something important or overcome a battle before it even starts, I rename the monsters and repackage the events they would have seen then place them further on in the story. I do this instead of dragging them party back kicking and screaming to where I want them or fudging the roll so I can see my hard work and cool monsters actually get some use. This way, by simply changing the flavour of my monsters and locations of my plot points my hard work is still useful and the story can continue to move forward. Besides, if the players don’t know what they missed they won’t realize you did anything at all.

Well that is my Risk/Reward mechanic; I hope it is as useful and helpful for you as it is for me. There really is nothing quite like the face of a player after they have just run across a block of city roofs, leaping over alleys and danger, only to slay the big bad with a single arrow through his study window. Let me know how the Risk/Reward mechanic works out for you if you use it and I’ll be back to my normal flavour filled ranting next week.


  1. For Folks who wanted to use a d20 scale and keep the “higher is better” philosophy:
    1-3 Horrible
    4-6 Awful
    7-10 Fail
    11-14 Pass
    15-17 Awesome
    18-20 Spectacular

    Very interesting system, though I could see it taking me a while to think “what would the difference between an awful and a merely failing result” for each given situation. Your guidelines above help, but even giving more specific guidelines, using specific mechanics, would be really helpful to the extent that one can think of all the different bonuses/penalties/resources/losses a PC might incur.

    Also, to deal with your players being a little too spectacular (to the point where nothing that your system is supposed to reward as risky really feels risky anymore) I might change the distribution a bit, such that, say 60% of your outcomes were a normal pass or fail, and it would be harder to get to the really spectacular (or spectacularly bad) outcomes. For example:

    1 Horrible
    2-4 Awful
    5-10 Fail
    11-16 Pass
    17-19 Awesome
    20 Spectacular

    In this case, you would give a +1 per relevant skill training, feat, power used, tier above heroic, and maybe background component, with a DM’s choice bonus (probably no more than +1) of how heroic (or whatever feel you’re going for in your campaign) the action is. It will prompt players to be gamist (by looking at their sheets to find all the potential bonus sources), but probably no more so than the base system.

    Of course, you might just do this by setting a DC of the task based on the PC level and difficulty (p 42 DMG), saying that for every 5 points by which you surpass the DC, you get a better outcome, and then save Spectacular outcomes for when you roll a natural 20. Meanwhile, for each 5 by which you fail the DC, something progressively worse happens, and save Horrible outcomes for when you roll a natural 1.

    Interesting idea – sorry for the way overly long comment.

  2. Shilling says:

    OK. Your intention is good, but I’m not sure I agree with your methods. It looks as if you have overlaid a new resolution mechanic on top of the existing ones. This is why your battles are being side-stepped; they are being resolved without use of the combat systems. Things like critical hits already exist for exceptional combat success and fumbles can be added back in if you want.

    By all means allow skill-based stunts and capers to influence the combat with bonuses or status changes. This is to be encouraged. If they are inspired enough the players may even take out the enemies through means other than combat – but once combat is joined use the systems designed for that purpose.

    The “all roads lead to Rome” trick is fine and has its place, but really shouldn’t by used as often as you imply. That would get repetitive and be surely noticed and make adventures take twice as long.

    The way to go is to look at ways to interpret existing mechanics to get more fidelity from them. Aoi’s DC-to-roll difference is a very good example. I might use increments of 2 (the standard bonus) or even 1 rather than 5, but the principle is the same. No new rules, no additional dice rolls – you are just getting more out of systems that already exist in the game.

    Props to you for trying out new stuff though.

  3. wow o.o this system sound really amazing…

    Although this is definitely too advance for me at the moment (i wouldn’t be able to handle so many outcomes and redo’s of my ongoing history) but its going to my “OMG DM resources” box and definitely going to try it when i feel more comfortable DMing,

    Great post bro 🙂

  4. highbulp says:

    I think Aoi has it right about everything.

    I find it interesting that you want to encourage the game to be more swingy. In my games, I’d rather do everything I can to REDUCE the chance of amazing dramatic turns happening on a single die roll (happening on a series of die rolls, maybe–but even then it’s better IMO to have the stuff that you aren’t rolling lead to the major changes). 4e is all about reducing the swinginess in combat; why add it back in such an extreme manor?

  5. This sounds like a game unto itself. Along with a lot of other mechanics…this would be really fun for an action-packed, heavily dramatic system.
    .-= Andy´s last blog ..Review: Dominion–a really fun card game =-.

  6. @Shilling: Actually, the reason I said a “5 more than the DC” rather than a smaller number is because I was thinking of the rules for climbing and swimming (under the Athletics skill) have different results if you fail by 5 or more. It seemed like the most analogous interval. Of course, +4 or +2 would also work just as well.

  7. You have to remember, Scott said that this should be used for those situations where normal game mechanics don’t or can’t really come into play. I think it is an excellent idea, I’d just have to make sure my players don’t try this every time instead of using their skills/abilities.

    It could only add to the game.

    .-= Tourq´s last blog ..The Best Character Formulas – Part 2 =-.

  8. Dimsim says:

    @ Scott:

    What a great idea! I love that you give your players the freedom to be creative like that – As you said the pass/fail can be quite restrictive, and yeah o.k. you can get a natural 20 or auto fail on a 1 but I really feel like this is a great way to add dimension to a game. Kudos – V. impressed. I feel like you could be paving the way for future DMs to some extent.

    @ Shilling:

    I don’t think it would be as difficult as you seem to think it would be to incorporate this. All it would require would be a little creativity on the DMs part. There is nothing stopping the DM from doing up a list of possibilities that could be incorporated into most situations before the game begins.
    Each DM has his/her own style, and I personally think it’s great that Scott gives his players as much freedom as he says – if nothing else it lets the PCs get sucked into their charachters even more than usual as they think of all the possibilties! (how exciting!)
    I think what you seem to be worried, shilling, is the game leaving the control of the DM however a good DM can always bring it back to where the game needs to be. It surely would make the game even more surprising for the DM also by giving PCs creative licence. It stops the game from being predictable.

    @ everyone: Isn’t gaming about new experiences and the joy of evolving through that? I believe that although the old system obviously works there is no harm in playing around with it and seeing where you end up with new ideas! A DM shouldn’t just sound like they’re a reader reading outloud from a script – they should act like a god creating a whole world in front of their players eyes.

    Well done Scott – would love to be a player in your games!

  9. @Tourq & Dimsim: I never meant to imply that the OP had done something wrong. Just that what he was doing it (d100, you want to roll low, with differing levels of success/failure depending on how bad or good you roll) was statistically identical to other possibilities that might mesh better with 4e’s existing mechanics (namely, d20, you want to roll high, and there are sometimes differing levels of success/failure depending on how bad or good you roll), which would make them easier to implement at the table, which is an important measure of quality in any house rule. The OP’s method and my “you get extra good/bad if you roll really well/poorly” would actually function more or less identically at the table, just using different dice.

    That being said, of course it was really cool that he recognized a problem (lack of nuance resulting from binary outcomes & lack of awesome stuntage in 4e RAW) and came up with a novel solution. I intended my own post and read Shilling’s not as a criticism of the attempt, but rather an attempt to analyze the result of his efforts. Or more to the point…

    Good work, Scott!

  10. @Aoi: Thank you for doing up a d20 scale for this, muchly appreciated.

    With specific guidelines, i tend to approach the consequences of this system on a case by case system. However if i ever find myself truly stumped on the outcome i use the following effects to help steer the outcome:

    Spectacular: Bonus status affecting entire party
    Awesome: Bonus Status affecting PC
    Pass: Goal achieved, no bonus
    Fail: Goal just failed, no negative
    Awful: Negative status affecting PC
    Horrible: Negative Status affecting entire party.

    I hope they help out.

    In the case of avoiding players from being overly spectacular or horrible by decreasing the percentage brackets. I find that allowing the 15/15/20/20/15/15% bracket gives the system a fairly even balance in the long run, but thats me personally. I’m sure many people out there feel their players shouldn’t affect the game massively from one idea/roll, but personally i like the drama and increased pace it brings to the table. (A quick aside. For anyone who agrees with Aoi, i highly recommend that you use his adjustments as they are sound and suit the system well.)

    I was going to reference pg. 42 of the DMG but i decided not to, as to allow the Risk/Reward mechanic to feel open and not particularly associated with one system more than another. My intention was to allow the Mechanic to be available to RPG systems, not 4E alone. The reason i didn’t go with a d20 is probably a minimal detail, but i like to be able to pull out every idea my players have and apply bonuses to correspond. Sure i could inform them that their overall idea grants them a +1 to the d20 roll, but i prefer breaking it down and adding a couple of +2’s and +3’s to the d% roll. I believe this in turn encourages players to increase the detail and effort they put into their ideas at the table.

    At the end of the day, i appreciate your feedback and ideas as they make the Risk/Reward system fit into 4E better. I hope that some part of the mechanic is beneficial for you, and don’t worry about the length of your replies, as you have undoubdetly realised i tend to be long winded myself.


    @Shilling: Personally, i do not use this system in place of the Combat mechanics or any other mechanic already established. However i do use it when my players either detail and narrate their actions to me or come up with an idea that falls outside of any supplied mechanic i have at hand. The main reason i use the Risk/Reward system is to encourage my players to become apart of the narration and story creation of my games. Alternatively, if i fell a battle begins to grind i use the mechanic to end it quickly so we can move on.

    With the ‘All roads lead to Rome’ idea. I only have a certain amount of time to plan for my games and if during that game the PC’s overcome an event in a way they wouldn’t trigger a battle or the would bypass a plot point, i use the ARLTR (All roads Lead to Rome) to seamlessly intergrate what i have planned back into the story at a later point, with different monsters and under a different scenario. I feel that there is nothing worse than achieving something really cool, or pulling off a detailed plan to rescue the princess stealthily only to have the DM slam combat in your face anyway, just because he has it pre-planned.

    Finally as i mentioned above to Aoi, i didn’t use DC-to roll mechanics as i wanted the Risk/Reward to be a stand alone mechanic that can be adapted and used within any game.

    Thanks for the feedback Shilling, i appreciate all constructive input.

    @Papabaloo, Glad you find it interesting and useful. I hope you get the chance to use it one day and it works as well for you as it does for me.

    @Highbulp, I’m glad you agree with Aoi as he made some very good points. However i love swingy stuff in my games. When my players come from left field and shock me with an idea i like to reward it. But thats how i play 🙂

    @Andy, Thanks, i run alot of my games in a very fast paced, high action way. Even when i don’t have a high paced game, i still take great enjoyment from my players taking control of the story and when that happens the Risk/Reward is awesome. On a completely different note, i finally watched Shelock Holmes last night and it completely inspired a campaign setting for me. Maybe i should use this system as a base for a Sherlock Holmes based

    @Tourq, Thanks alot. You seem to have the exact same grasp of this mechanic as i do. It’s not wrong or right, we just think the same. I hope you can get some good use out of it.

    @Dimsim: Thanks, i hope you find some use for the system. I really try to encourage my players to share their ideas with the table. I’m always allowing new players at my table however you would have to make your way to Australia though, lol.
    .-= Scott´s last blog ..Rewarding The Risks =-.

  11. Shilling says:

    @Dimsin, Player freedom is good! GM creativity is good! I never disparaged those points or expressed fear of GM losing control. In fact those things are more than good, they are almost required.

    The point I was making, as Aoi said, is that there is no need to add a new mechanic into the game, because existing rules already cover all this stuff! It is not about difficulty if implementation, it is about adding surplus dice rolls that don’t need to be added. It is about elegance.

    @Scott ah good I wasn’t sure if you were accidentally replacing combat or not. However you definitely are replacing skill checks and skill challenges. See your example:

    “For example, my warrior says he wants to scale a the three story tavern and then jump from the roof to tackle the Young Red Dragon mid-flight, making it crash to the ground.”

    Climb, jump, tackle. Two athletics checks and a strength check. Or, if you prefer, an athletics check, an acrobatics check and a to-hit roll. You wanted get more variation than the fail/success, fine – so use the difference between the roll and the DC to judge. You can use the difference of each roll, or add all the differences together – this is the place where I would focus my rule design, finding a scale that works well in the most situations.

    I appreciate you are trying to make a system-agnostic rule, but you ought to be aware when you are replacing or duplicating mechanics in the game you are playing. Most good RPGs will have a robust resolution mechanic already in place that will give you the kinds of results you want if you just interpret them right.

    But as I said at the start, well done for trying stuff out and making the effort to make your game more exciting. I love swashbuckling capers!

  12. I wholly agree with a nonbinary approach to task resolution. In D&D in general and 4e in specific, that’s often dissatisfying. I applaud any attempt to make thegame more narrative and to make theplayers think cinematically. But I have to agree with Shilling when it comes to using this mechanic in D&D 4e, especially in light of Scott’s description of air-tackling a dragon. If you want a degree of success or failure, compare the check result to the DC based on an increment. The character’s skills and powers can also help you determine the outcome.

    In the case of the fighter air-tackling a dragon. I’d certainly allow the possibility, with early success helping later ones. I’d even let the fighter trade damage from an attack power for the results he or she wanted (knocking the dragon prone). I might even allow the fighter, with spectacular success, to avoid some or all of the falling damage. I wouldn’t have the dragon bloodied and dazed and the fighter unscathed based on one die roll, however. The fighter gained a great advantage for the party by simply knocking the dragon down with out-of-the box thinking and a good body blow. He or she also marked it. 😉
    .-= Chris Sims´s last blog ..D&D Trivia Archive 1 =-.

  13. Will F says:

    This really isn’t my place to say but.

    @Shilling, How on earth do you find the concept that rolling 3 (as you mentioned) checks for 1 action as simple as rolling 1 d% check? I think all you nay sayers need to stop acting like 4E fanboys and take the idea at face value.

    Andy has the right idea, sounds like a great system in of itself.

  14. This sounds like a great idea, I’ve been looking for something to open up narration to my players for some time.

    Thanks, this is an awesome idea 😛


  15. I’m already trying to work it out for my games.

    .-= Tourq´s last blog ..The Best Character Formulas – Part 2 =-.

  16. Shilling says:

    @Will F, I’ve explained my my concerns, but you asked me a question, so I will answer.

    First it was not one action, it was three. The d% mechanic above is a conflict resolution, whereas D&D is built on task resolution.

    If the single roll is used, and succeeds, how much time does it take? If something happens between the climbing and the tackling, is it still successful? What are the other PCs doing during this time? If the roll fails, at which point does failure occur – the climbing, the jumping or the tackling?

    Having 3 checks (one for each action) is simpler to manage in terms of passage of time and the actions of other entities.

    It’s also simpler because it is based on an existing rule that is supported by all the other rules in the system (like character abilities, skills and powers). D20 rolls can often be simpler to teach, modify, calculate and read.

    If you like conflict resolution more than task resolution, then great! I do sometimes too. But D&D is perhaps not the place for it and maybe you should consider playing something more new-school like Prime Time Adventures or Dogs in the Vineyard ( both excellent games). Because conflict resolution requires other additional rules to run smoothly on (like who holds narrative imperative at any particular point).

    I will repeat one more time – having increments of narrative success is fantastic and I encourage everyone to do it.. But I personally would not choose to insert surplus rules when the game already supports it as-is.

    These are my considerations regarding house rule design – in the end though, as long as everyone at the table keeps having fun, then everything is working fine.

  17. @WillF: You’re right, I did assume we were talking about 4e even though Scott didn’t say it explicitly. Sorry. But, discussing and considering possible issues does not equal naysaying.

    Most of our points are valid for integrating any new mechanic into any existing system. There would be similar issues if one imported Scott’s d100 stunt system into Storyteller, or Risus, or ORE. Adding something different when the existing system could be used in a mathematically equivalent fashion to do exactly the same thing runs the risk of adding complexity without improving the game, no matter how awesome your new mechanic is in and of itself. Translating how existing game elements (like feats, skills, attributes) affect the resolution of a mechanic they were not built for is a legitimately important consideration.

    For example, if we’re playing D&D and using the d100 stunt system and got a five percentage likelihood increase from being trained in a relevant skill (like Athletics or Acrobatics in the jump on the dragon example), that would be mathematically less of a bonus than the +5 we get to d20 skill check most of the time. This isn’t to say it shouldn’t be done, just that it should be considered (which Scott does). Analogous issues would pop up if used in other systems. What does my level in a cliche do when that cliche is relevant to a d100 stunt I’m trying to pull in Risus?

    Indeed, like Andy said, Scott’s idea could be a great core mechanic for a new system. It’s cool and intuitive to use percentages and I like the larger degree of freedom you have with 100 possible outcomes rather than 20. But notice how few if anyone has said how they’re going to build a whole new game to play based off of it, but rather that they’re going to incorporate it into their existing game in an existing system. The discussion has been how to incorporate this mechanic into games. I think we want to do that because it’s an awesome idea.

  18. Chris Sniezak says:

    My first reaction to reading the mechanic was “Wow, this can be the basis for a whole new game.” It’s a pretty nifty idea. Then I thought about it for a while and I see it being able to help to speed up a game as an optional system.

    It’s true that 4e’s basis is in task resolution and not conflict resolution but sometimes using the task resolution system takes a long time. Another strength of the 4e design, at least in my opinion, is how modular it is. You could rip out the skill challenge system and put Scotts right into it’s place and not break the game. You can also use this system as an add on. When situations come up where a character has an idea that’s pretty far out or over the top dramatic you can pull out these rules.

    Personally I would use Aoi’s slightly less swingy set up since the modifiers you’d be getting from the powers, feats, and skills you choose will change the range of the Horrible and Spectacular results. I’m not sure if this was part of the mechanic but I would let other characters help, react, or contribute to the occurring situation in a similar fashion as Mouse Guard. If they can assist the situation in some way shape or form with a feat, skill, or power they can shift the scale by one as long as they describe the action and how it contributes to achieving the goal of the situation.

    Yes this does put a conflict resolution system into a game focused on task based resolution but if you can, why not have your cake and eat it too, especially if your having fun.

  19. I like this idea, interesting, creative and original. I will like to try this out at some point and see how it rolls (no pun intended)!.

    It’s almost taking skill rolls to a next level, as they are still incorporated in this system and still having the element of chance included. Could you maybe have two skills at once included? Such as jumping up a building quietly (acrobatics and move silently)? Would that increase or decrease the percentage?

    This system would be great for those who really want to shine in their creativity!

    Thank you.
    .-= begindnd´s last blog ..Masterplan – Fantastic DM tool for 4th Edition D&D! =-.

  20. @Everyone, Thank you for all your feedback, it is very much appreciated.

    @Will F, I’m glad you like the idea and i hope you can get some use out of it. However i don’t believe anyone was being a ‘4E Fanboy’ as such, just providing their input on the system. Thanks

    @LAraz, Thanks, I hope this system can improve your game and help entice your players to narrate their own actions. Let me know how it works out for you.

    @Tourq, Great, let me know how it works out for you. Thanks mate.

    @Aoi, Shilling & Chris Sims, Thanks for you input and feedback guys, very much appreciated. I will definately keep all your ideas and comments at the forefront when i build more homebrew rules and mechanics in the future. Especially with anything to do with 4E. Thanks

    @Chris Sniezak, I have started to think that building a whole fast paced game, with this mechanic as the core is a good idea, thanks. One of my favourite applications for this system is to use it to help speed up grinding combat, it can really help move the story along and allow the players to do some really cool stuff to finish the combat off, instead of it just grinding to a slow, dull finish.

    I always allow other players to help out other players when using this system. I usually get them to make a seperate check and if they pass or fail depends on whether the help or hinder the initial players chances. Thanks

    @Begindnd, Thanks, as with everyone else, if you do use this system please let me know how it works for you. Multiple skills in the check is definitely possible, any skills, feats or powers that fit into the players narration of their actions, can stack to improve their odds of passing. However the more difficult the task is itself, the less chance they have to pass in the first place.

    Thanks again everyone.

    .-= Scott Wallace´s last blog ..Rewarding The Risks =-.

  21. Matthew says:

    Not sure if this is something that might have been brought up by others already, but the same sort of effect might be achieved by allowing Players to Stunt their actions, taking on higher DC’s (“spending” the DC dividend on effects to add if they are successful) but doing so also increases the range of numbers that count as a Botch.

  22. Good article and great idea, Scott!

    I plug your blog post in my next newsletter that gets emailed tonight. Kudos!
    .-= Mark L. Chance´s last blog ..The Swift Storm =-.