Search results

Roller Coasters still have rails. They are just short rails. You can't get off of one in the middle, or at least that would be a very, very bad idea. That would make narrative games with that interpretation of Fail Forwards a series of small railroads, instead of one long one. I don't agree...

It's not linear if they are being forced down a path. Linear is in one direction, but the PCs can get off/are not forced. Fail forward where the PCs are forced to succeed even with failed rolls and no matter what they try, is railroading. Hell, what they try doesn't even matter at that point...

This is where playstyle and preference make all the difference. My setting actually has billions of NPCs that exist within it. This matters to me because... 1) The NPC isn't popping into existence for the sake of the PCs to interact with. That NPC existed in its own right before the PCs got...

Players opting to get on the rail doesn't make it not a railroad. If everything the players do propels them down the same path towards the same goal no matter what they try or whether they succeed or fail, that's a railroad, If your interpretation of Fail Forward is true, then narrative play...

PC: I'm going to try and pick the lock. AnotherGuy: Okay, the DC is 1-0-1-0-0.

If there's nothing particularly challenging about entering the house, there really shouldn't be a roll. The DM should just narrate the entrance and play should go from there.

If that's the case and it's not just something that moves the story forward, then it's very much a railroad technique. The DM is pushing the players down a specific path, even if it's one they want to be on.

What you seem to be ignoring, and I don't know why, is that fail forward does not have to open the lock. Short of a specific RPG making a rule where it does always have to open the lock like the one mentioned upthread, fail forward could be guards walking around the corner, or someone from...

Yeah. I've never really thought about it like that, but for the DM all possibilities are there until one of them is selected(chosen or random) and then the others disappear. From the moment the DM starts building a setting or adventure it's like that. For the players, though, it's rarely...

I find it far better to roll the wandering monsters in advance, because if there is one then I can figure out how best to fit that encounter into the fiction seamlessly and realistically. It also generally makes for a more enjoyable encounter for everyone, since it's not rushed.

That's why it's a playstyle choice. Some folks have no issue with it and want to play that way. Some folks don't. And as I've pointed out, fail forward never has to include success at the task at hand. Only that the STORY moves forward. In one of the examples given, the rogue failed to open...

Yes. I'm looking at the moment of the picking of the lock and opening the door to the kitchen. In that moment in one method the cook is there or not there determined by a roll, and in the other method the cook is pre-established to be there or not and the roll to open doesn't matter.

I think this depends on the table/DM outlook on the situation. From my standpoint, the only assumed thing there is number 1. Opening the lock. The other stuff is variable and would be something declared by the player that I would factor into the attempt. This means that if the player says...

That's what fail forward actually is. You've failed, but the story moves forward in some way that is interesting to the group. The situation doesn't remain the same, with the group just standing outside of a locked door like there were before the attempt. After you've broken all of your...

It also has a loud gong that goes off when cast. :p

It's only "quantum" if you move the goalposts and include the DM. The context of this discussion is the PCs entering the kitchen and maybe encountering a chef. Not the DM. So while it may be "quantum" in that until I roll to see if there's an encounter, there might or might not be, this isn't...

In my experience, it almost never plays out that way. More likely it will go something like... (In war council with the Duke) Duke: The invading army is heading this way. My scouts inform me that the army pushes at times, and rests to forage for supplies at other times. They could be here...

Yes. What I will do is something like the following. The players decide to break into the wizard Alchaeus's tower. Alchaeus has two servants who live with him. His apprentice who also doubles as his personal servant, and his chef. While the players are discussing their plan to break in, I'll...

There's no real difference between rolling for time that has passed in advance and rolling for time that has passed in real time. Either way, it's a random encounter based on time that has passed. The biggest difference is that if I do it in advance, I have more time to think about how to make...

Easy. I know the party is going to be traveling through a forest for three days. So I roll random encounters for all three days prior to the session ever starting. I know what the random encounter will be, when during the day it happens, what direction it is coming from, and so on. A day is...