Search results

I mean, yea? If you want to pre-establish stuff, then fail forward techniques might be less useful because you have less freedom to make up new things. That’s exactly why I don’t generally pre-establish stuff. Whatever you’re gaining from pre-establishing stuff doesn’t do anything for me.

“And when we die, our bodies feed the grass. Thus we are all connected in the great circle of life.”

Coming up with a narration for why a cook might be in the kitchen of a manor house late at night doesn’t require some exceptional DMing. At best, it requires you to be vaguely familiar with some medieval fantasy tropes.

Oh man, wait until you hear about Yahtzee.

I don’t think that’s true. The cook may not be statted or planned previously, but it exists as a concept just like the millions of other potential NPCs that could be introduced during the game.

Well, it’s from 1e, so it’s probably fine. :)

Unless the rules say otherwise, of course. Or are you saying those rules are wrong?

That's the problem with necromancers, they're always just rising out of the woodwork. :)

Then....don't? Personal dislike of a technique is completely orthogonal to the technique's validity.

The "failure" is the metagame result of not meeting the target number, not so much the narrative result. I just thought of another fun example of "failing forward": damage on a miss.

Valda's has some really strong classes; the Witch, the Warmage, and the Investigator are my personal favorites.

I mean, I think trying to GM scenes such that "everything makes sense" is kind of the point! Much like rolling an encounter on a table and discarding it because it violates plausibility, as you mentioned earlier.

I don't know why I just realized this, but the A-Team was a proto-Leverage. I went with Hannibal, because in shows that are all about how a plan comes together, I like the character who made the plan the most.

Yep. I, personally, can't square "I want the setting to feel like it exists" with "Rolling a cook on an encounter table, instead of just narrating a cook, makes the world feel more real." Just doesn't compute for me.

It's hard to tell. There's only 2 classes available on D&D Beyond that I can find, and both are $15. Bundles of subclasses with monsters or spells or items seem to be going for $30-$40. It absolutely seems that there's an expectation that you'll pay a premium for D&D Beyond integration...

People just have to accept that BG3 was a generational game. You can't create a pipeline to create more generational games. Nothing that gets produced that is trying to chase the BG3 audience is going to recapture the particular alchemy that created BG3.

Or to ask an even broader question, could you enjoy a trad-style game if you knew the DM was just making everything as they want along? I ask because no-prep trad/neotrad type games are probably my most common GM style.

The reason I do most everything. For the lulz.

Oh, I know it bothers people, sort of like how I know lots of people don’t like spicy food. I just can’t make myself feel empathy for it.

Right. It matters to people that it's not being made up at the moment. I don't why that's the issue, but it is THE issue.