Search results

The problem then is that you want consistent rules for something that, as you say, isn't consistent. Trauma--long term type trauma, like what you're talking about--should be an opt-in experience for several reasons. If its enforced via a die roll, then as I said before, it prevents you from...

Because you continue to misrepresent it as being nonsensical "quantum screaming cook." Maybe if you actually acknowledged what it really was instead of continually using strawmen, we would accept it was a preference rather than, well, the conservatism of a D&D fan.

You missed tons. Guard dog. Lockpick breaking. Lock breaking or jamming. Door locks behind them, meaning the PC has to pick the lock again in order to exit through that door. Penalty to further lockpicking rolls in that house because the locks are unusual. Trigger a trap (if they hadn't...

Well, it's their character, so they should know if its in character or not. (And "it's what my character would do" is only a problem if the player is using it as an excuse to be an antisocial jerk.) Assuming a game that's anything other than mostly normal people doing mostly normal people...

Then you pick a different possibility. Many, many of them have been brought up in this thread alone.

The problem is that rules like morale or Persuasion checks is that they make people play not in character. They have to run away because the dice say they do, not because it's in character for them to run away. They have to believe an NPC or accept someone's arguments because the dice say they...

And for the last time, many of us have said that this was a bad example. Why do you keep bringing it up like it's the end-all and be-all of fail forward design?

There's no way to enforce this. A PC can accept being persuaded and then change their mind back to their original position later on. A PC can accept that morale is broken and run away and then immediately restart their attack. If there's a reward or penalty, the players will weigh the benefits...

The rules don't need to spell everything out, because the writers assume that the players and GM have an imagination. For instance, if you fail a stealth check, the rules don't say how. But you probably wouldn't use the following: Instead you'd say something like "I stepped on a twig." Even...

Everything you do adds to the fiction. Narrating that the kitchen is completely empty of people adds to the fiction. If you succeed on the lockpicking, then you managed to do so without complications. If there is a cook, they didn't hear you. It doesn't necessarily mean that you made no...

But you're constantly shifting lanes every time you have to roll the dice. Every time you do so, you're reminded that your characters aren't real and their lives are controlled by little plastic shapes and a set of rules, more so then suddenly switching characters. So how is the world building...

No. You're supposed to play your character not as an idiot, but as someone who acts like a normal person does. D&D PCs do not act like normal people. They act like people who expect terrible things to happen to them at any moment for no good reason--because that reason is actually "the GM...

If you succeed at picking a lock, your pick grabs the pins or whatever and moves them correctly. If you fail, its because your pick didn't grab the pins or whatever correctly. Your lock isn't waving around in air because there's very little room in that lock. Your pick hitting things it...

I asked why it feels different to you. That was a genuine question. Why does helping to make the world make it feel less real or immersive to you?

Y'all keep forgetting what the original blog post actually said: the cook screams on a failed lockpick. So it actually works like this: Pick succeeds, cook present, doesn't scream: the cook doesn't notice the PC because they opened the lock smoothly enough to remain undetected. Pick fails, cook...

I have literally never experienced that at all, and I can't understand why it would feel less immersive. Does it feel less immersive when you don't use other out-of-character knowledge? Like, one of our GMs was running us through Icewind Dale, and all of us-as-PCs were "Drizzt who?" even though...

How so? If anything, it should let players be more immersed in the fiction, because they have a part in making it. The fiction isn't just an infodump that is (often) ignorable.

Does checking for Hope and Fear really count as being a separate step from rolling to hit? You're supposed to have two obviously different dice, so it'll be immediately obvious which one is which while you're adding those two dice up. You'd be saying "15 with Hope" or things like that. Only PCs...

You've said a bunch of stuff in this thread that has been quite belittling to other games and other modes of play. You've outright stated several times that your preferred games are simply better than others in one way or another. Just a few posts back, you said "I also think that many of those...