Search results

If the cook example is bad, why was it used as an official example of the technique? And if you're supposed to be really good for the technique to not feel clumsy, shouldn't that information be available in the games that demand its use? I've played several games that use this stuff, and every...

Not unless something truly unexpected happens and some degree of improvisation is needed. I try to be thorough in my prep, but things happen.

And that's fine if fail-forward (still don't like that name) works for you.

The roll is about picking the lock successfully. That's clear in understanding how skills work in traditional games. All those other factors are about a different result than "lock opened yes/no?". Unlike the common perception of OSR fans, i like rules. Most of my favorite games have quite a...

Are all those things in the skill description of the rulebook you're using?

Except succeed with complication is more accurate to what's actually occurred. Is it just the alliteration? We can call it "succeed sideways".

Agreed. We are allowed to not like what you like. We are also allowed to feel about it a way you do not feel, or to draw conclusions about how it reads to us that you do not draw. You can do the same. So long as you're clear that they're your personal opinions, I promise not to argue with your...

If we're not going to use the technique how important can it's validity to others really be? I officially accept other people like and use fail-forward in their entirely successful RPG play. Who's with me?

Ah, there's the problem. I avoid metagame as much as I can.

I'm not sure. I've never thought of GMing as "running scenes", and I see no reason to start now.

But why is it called failure if you succeeded at what you were trying to do? It really seems like the wrong term to use.

Also it's prep instead of mechanical enforcement.

Yeah. That's how much time you have. Not a lot, but maybe enough to do a couple important things.

If they're happy with the other implications of the technique, then sure.

But it wasn't in response to the actual attempt to break in. It was in response to needing to know who was in the house and where. Again, you probably don't see the distinction. Others do.

Isn't that just the opposite? Looking for reasons for the desired effect to make sense rather looking for reasons for it not to?

I would enjoy it less personally, but my players would probably be fine with it.

Well if you don't care, why are you discussing the issue?

There's been a long-running argument that principled restrictions on the GM's power don't count unless you can look them up and cite them in the rulebook.

You don't know why this bothers people because we have different expectations of play.