Search results

That's not clear at all. How I see it is that the thief gets more skilled with his sleight of hand to pick pockets as he gains levels, and the targets get wiser about guarding their belongings and/or more perceptive as THEY gain levels. All the stuff about judgment and holding back isn't in...

No. I mean we. It was several of us. And no, it's not quantum that I don't like vs. quantum that I do. There's a difference in the play experience between quantum for the DM only in his private time, and quantum for the players in real time. Except they are not inherently DM driven. The DM...

Yes, but not in the way you're trying to do it. The burglar would look around the area to make sure he wasn't being watched before starting to pick the lock. That's the sort of competence that would be appropriate to look at there. Not whether or not you successfully picked a lock. Why would...

They can be and are. In my game there is no retrofitting of the terrain to fit in an encounter.

You clearly don't understand it if you are still calling it DM driven/centered. Player driven with the DM reacting to the players every step of the way, including random encounter rolls, cannot be considered to be DM driven/centerd. And this is just more proof of your lack of understanding...

No. I don't. You can't make me use someone else's methods. I'm not sure why you are even trying. I don't retroactively create valleys or clearings for encounters to happen. This is the last time I'm going to tell you this. You are completely wrong with that statement. If I describe the...

That's because you aren't thinking it through. Whether or not someone is in a room has zero to do with competence of a lock picker. None. Hell, how many times have you seen a movie where the master thief is picking a lock and someone walks by and he has to stop and play it cool, or opens the...

I don't know, but I do know that he played a very different game than the 1e rulebooks lay out. It's certainly possible, though.

For him. You can't apply that to any of the rest of us who haven't said we do it like that. I don't.

The random encounter roll is absolutely connected to the game world. The encounter tables are by terrain type, the terrain being the aspect of the world being traveled through. It's also based on the likelihood in-fiction of randomly running into a monster, which connects to the game world...

It is, but folks like to call it goal and approach. Gotta have terms for everything you know. At least they aren't calling it GAP and making it an acronym. :P

It's generally X number of times per day, varying based on terrain or location(dungeon, temple, etc.). If they linger, there will be more rolls in that area. Going back several hundred pages now, I roll in advance so that I can make the random encounter more fun. Rolling in advance, though...

It isn't even an appeal to real authority. Gygax didn't play like the book rules said to, either. He played the game very differently.

But it is based on PC skill. The more skilled the PC in the fiction, the less likely to encounter the cook behind that door. To the point that it would become apparent to the PCs that bad things happen a lot more often when unskilled members try stuff.

It's quite common. Rather than, Player: "Can I roll to make a raft?" It's goal and approach, "I'm going to try and make a raft to get across the bay. I'll go into the forest to look for dead trees that I can lash together with my rope. I also have some pitons that I can use with my hammer...

Yes, but not as anything that has to do with what happens after a failure. Goal and approach are just to inform the DM of what you are trying and how. That way he can adjudicate auto success, auto failure, or whether it's in doubt and a roll is called for.

Yes. How people(including Gygax and the other D&D designers) ran the game back then was typically different than how he wrote it.

And this is perfectly fine. We are all entitled to our preferences for what we like when we play RPGs.

Don't forget the skill of the lock picker, which is the worst part of all of this. Let's say both are level one and the DC for the lock is 15. A PC with an 8 dex untrained has a 75% chance of failure and running into the cook. A PC who is trained and has an 18 dex has 40% chance of failing and...