Search results

Right, and that works both ways. That's probably why the two sides of this discussion have the preferences that we do.

Random encounters happen when PCs are at a location. I roll them in advance to give me time, but they are already at that location. If they surprise me and leave the area to the point where a random encounter should not have been rolled, they will not have that encounter. What you are doing...

Because it's a wizard's tower and the first floor is for entertaining guests, not living. Remember, it's her, the apprentice and the wizard. Yes. That's exactly what I said. Early MORNING, not middle of the night. Waking up at 4 or 5am should be sufficient for all of that. It doesn't work...

It's not quantum. It's entirely irrelevant whether or not it's quantum to me. Once the encounter is established, it can't be quantum to the PCs. The monster is established to be in a very specific area.

It's connected in the same way that I'm connected to grass because I ate a steak. Because it's the middle of the night, not early morning. She wouldn't need to be up at midnight to 2am to make breakfast for dawn. And I already pre-established in prior posts that she sleeps upstairs. Am I...

Those the monkey guys from Star Frontiers? :P

First, I didn't say for sure that it was most, but I very strongly believe that it is. Second, 4e was not a traditional D&D game. Third, in the 5e amd 5.5e DMGs it's a small optional rule, not the default. Fourth, if you really think that fail forward is used by a majority of DMs, I've got...

It was a joke man. Peace.

A failed lockpick check. ;)

First, the cook isn't rolled on a wandering monster table, it's appearing in response to a completely unconnected pick lock roll. Second, it's the middle of the night when the cook would be in a deep sleep, yet the roll teleports the cook to the kitchen awake and ready to spot the party...

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...