Search results

I think generally that's good advice, but not as an absolute like that rule implies. I've had players have their PCs try something complicated in a field that their PC had no training or experience in. They were effectively throwing a Hail Mary and they knew it. Failure in those situations...

The books didn't state that one way or the other, but I think that they were not truly endless. My feeling is that the books assume that there are enough of them present that for the duration most groups would be in the area/dungeon, all rolls of a particular creature are valid and encountered.

I suspect that's why I'm okay with it for spells and not weapons. Or it might be, because magic. Either way I recognize the inconsistency there on my part. :p

I dislike it for weapons, but I'm curious how you feel about damage(take half) on a miss(successful save vs. your spell)? I think the majority of damage dealing spells are effectively damage on a miss.

That doesn't make any sense. If you succeeded in your roll, there shouldn't be any complication attached to it. Success with a complication would be if you failed, or maybe if you failed by a very narrow margin.

It's only a problem if you don't like that style of play. It's not inherently a problem, like most things dealing with mechanics. However, it is a quantum cook since the cook is both behind that door and not behind that door until the die is rolled and her position in the house is fixed.

No. The roll was for the monster to wander into the group in that specific forest at a very specific time on the day I know that they are there. If for some reason the party teleports somewhere else before the wandering monster would arrive, they will not encounter trolls. The same would happen...

Or style. It would be pretty easy to apply fail forward to D&D, even though the game system isn't that way by default.

That's a pretty meaningless distinction, though. It's like arguing that you aren't losing your hair, you are just follicly challeged. :P Also, the failure doesn't necessarily mean backwards. It can and often does go sideways. Yes, it still moves very incrementally forward since there's I...

I'm not sure that's intentionally poor instead of just the facts of life when presenting a scenario online. Even @pemerton who posts the most detailed examples I know of on this site still isn't able to capture everything that led up to why he decided the way he did or why the players made the...

https://www.enworld.org/threads/rant-the-conservatism-of-d-d-fans-is-exhausting.712674/post-9681106

Of course they do. It's impossible for a DM to detail out even 5% of a world, so there are going to be gaps and things the DM forgot or didn't know to consider before players ask about them. The goal, though, is to minimize those occasions, not increase the number of them by embracing fail...

Yes, we all understand that. The double duty is the part we dislike.

Who was trying to sell someone? Not me. Not @Umbran that I could tell. A discussion was happening about the differences between fail forward and rolling on a table. Then a comment was made that people were losing sight of things because we are focusing on the cook scenario, but could be any...

Seriously? You cut out the part about players rolling for stats and then ask that question?!

In what way? I've tried very hard to present it the proper light. Even to the point of disagreeing with others on my side of this with how they are portraying fail forward.

You are arguing against something people here aren't saying. Nobody is saying that it's an invalid technique for those who want to use it. ;)

"Make it some other complication" ignores the point of contention about the cook scenario. Namely that many, if not most traditional DMs don't want to use fail forward as a technique. We understand that there are countless ways to present fail forward, which just makes countless ways that we...

It computes for us, because we don't control much of the real world, very often including who might be behind a door we are going to open. That lack of control in generating a likely individual to be behind or not be behind the door makes it feel more real. Granted it may not be that way for...

My ruling would be to use lockpicking. The character is taking exaggerated care and time to move the tumblers slow enough to be quiet about it. That to me would be skill with the tool, even though being quiet is usually stealth. Just like skills can use different stats like a dart game being...