Search results

many of us who are taking this stance i believe, (though i cannot be able to claim to speak for everyone,) have this opinion from the position of a player just as much as a GM, it doesn't matter what side of the table we're sitting on what matters to us is how the game is played and the fiction...

oh but it does affect what something actually is, a character can hope for something and if the dice or GM indulge, it will be that thing, their hopes can and do influence the reality they exist in.

but hope can never and has never changed what something actually is, my friend buys me a birthday present, i can hope til the cows come home for the box to contain this thing or that thing, but it's going to have diddly squat effect on what they actually got me or what the runes on the wall...

i have to at least agree with @EzekielRaiden point with this particular bit, just using the spells you already know how to cast, no matter in how many varied situations, is not experimenting with them or going to teach the wizard anything new, that's like saying if i 'experiment' cooking...

just on a personal level, i do not care about having a combat companion, i like find familiar more for the scouting and eavesdropping purposes.

i would guess that, to my knowledge of them, it's because they're often used to (at the very least attempt to) manipulate or bypass the usual gameplay mechanics to achieve a desired outcome and get the story going in the direction you want it to as a result,

you don't see how 'on a success you navigated the weak sections of the wall and reached the top, on a failure you didn't and fell' is different from 'on a success the wall was entirely solid and you climb it, on a failure it is a crumbly mess and you fall' i guess if you care about nothing but...

no, you misunderstand, i said i would never change the state of the fiction in response to a check, if the wall is solid it's solid, if it's crumbling it's crumbling but i'd never alter or decide that as a result of the climb check, the player might fall on a failure from a crumbing handhold but...

untrue, a complication is still a complication even if you have people who are skilled enough that dealing with it isn't an issue.

i realize there can be other complications, i was just trying to illustrate how deciding if the cook is there independently beforehand is different to deciding if they're there based on the results of the player's check.

and you've been told just as many times that others feel very different, that the end results are not the same, and how people feel about the end results are not the same. edit: when the state of the fiction is decided before the results of the check are known the consequences will be...

i feel like you must've been told several times over by now, please stop claiming no-one's explained it to you: the difference is that in being decided beforehand the result and state of the world is independent and in no way influenced by the outcome of the skill check.

but when the failure option presented wasn't 'the cook heard you and woke up' but 'the cook just so happened to be in the kitchen at X-AM in the morning' that's a little harder for us to swallow as the consequences of the thief's actions.

i think this is part of the issue in the conversation, common-use word meanings are getting confused with the jargon-uses.

the point is competent people 'make their own luck' by making different choices and taking different actions which have better odds of succeeding or even no chance of failure, not simply by making it generically 'more likely' that the cook isn't going to be on the other side of the door. the...

competent people who 'make their own luck' still can't control the universe

it's not more realistic if complications happen less when competent people are performing the task, the world doesn't care who is performing the task or how skilled they are, be it the three stooges or james bond, if the cook is going to be on the other side of the door then the cook is going to...

it's very simple it's different from a wandering monster roll whether they are here or there because with a wandering monster roll it is not determined where they are by someone else's skill at picking a lock.

your assertions that they are 'equally quantum' are untrue when for one roll the chances of the location of the cook has modifiers derived from the skill of the person performing the check. it matters that it is an independent roll.

it's not inconsistent, the wandering monster is not being determined by the same roll that the players are using for a check, it is determined by A roll, a neutral independent roll, but not THE (skill) roll, unlike the cook. it's really not that complicated a distinction.