Search results

That isn't what Lanefan very, very explicitly said in this post (bold added for emphasis): He explicitly said "I say the default should be to play them out unless the players say not to." Hence, every single interaction must be played out, every time, unless the players nix it. Every. Single...

The problem, Max, is that this is a situation where the repairman has already screwed up, and now you're left with a broken mess rather than something fixed up and humming along.

Ah, yes, because repairmen are just popping out of the woodwork. Oh wait, no they aren't. Because there's always been a shortage of GMs.

Morale checks. Some saving throws, particularly those regarding mental or observational phenomena. Essentially anything social, where why you're rolling is literally always important.

Nope! He isn't the most boring superhero ever. He is, in fact, the most popular superhero ever. So clearly, he can't be "the most boring superhero ever" if that many people are into it. Note, this is not saying he is the best, nor that popularity indicates anything other than popularity. But it...

But it is a cost directly caused by the failure. If you had successfully overcome the difficulty of the cliff, your friend would be alive (albeit perhaps on death's door, if you got a partial success; that'd depend on what the roll was and how the GM adjudicated it). Because you failed, your...

Did I ever say they NEVER haggle? No. I said it was ridiculous that absolutely every merchant will ALWAYS haggle, no matter what. And now we're getting yet another thing I was told no one ever does. That no one ever expects people to roleplay through the painstakingly dull "you ride for three...

And if the repairman's work is inadequate? Because that's a thing that happens IRL. A lot. I would know.

I for bloody sure agree WAY WAY WAY WAY more than "well we say there's a style but really there's 7000 almost totally unique people who just happen to claim that there is a style in common between them"!

Again: Why not? You're asserting this like it's a universal truth, something self-evident. It isn't. Not even in old-school D&D.

Is it that fail forward doesn't work there? Or is it that there are multiple ways to view failure even in that context, and thus it is only in the way you choose to run D&D that induces such an issue? Because I know for a fact that plenty of D&D games use this concept quite effectively.

No. The point was, very specifically, that the players must play this out, unless they explicitly say they don't want to. Because my standard, which I set out before this, was that I'm happy to do it if the players want to, but won't make a thing out of it unless they express interest.

So the reason is "because I want every single check to have a single specific defined success result and a single specific defined failure result"? How is that actually any kind of criticism against fail forward then? You're projecting a specific mechanical design and acting like that design is...

Okay. How is that different from what I originally said? Lanefan specifically said it is that the players WILL have to go through the haggle motions unless they explicitly say no. That was in response to my policy, which I was quite clear that if the players want to do it, sure, that's clearly...

Yep! A huge part of WoW improving its reception by gamers generally was by moving away from old-school-D&D design, and WoW itself was a stepping away from the intensely punitive old-school D&D design of EQ. My late father absolutely adored EQ--but he really, really disliked some of the ways...

And the former was rampantly overused. Weapon of first resort when it was designed as a weapon of last resort.

... If that's the best mechanic in 5.5e, wow, that's...not a great sign.

Exactly. The person who controls all of the contents of the world, and who can change those contents if/when/as they feel like it, and who contains ALL ability to ever observe any portion thereof, can always change those contents to be as they wish them to be. Nobody can pull off perfect...

But this then means there is no such thing as "traditional GM" stuff. There's just what SableWyvern does, what Lanefan does, what Micah does, etc. If you're going to say there is a style, then people who speak up in defense of that style should be expected to...y'know...defend that style and...

No, it isn't. It is literally the most important thing. The same goes for all your arguments about how important it is that characters roleplay with one another even when their lives aren't in danger. Because why you do things is, quite literally, the most important thing. If motive didn't...