Search results

Sure, but if the ambient noise is loud enough to mask the sound of a group of orcs, surely it's significant enough to warrant narration before the surprise attack, otherwise it can feel like a retcon or a rug-pull.

I was under the impression that the line of discussion was about how to apply the fail-forward principle in D&D (while adhering to D&D's mechanics).

Chainmail bikinis are a terrible idea - they conduct heat when sunbathing!

It is not made up, but it's not actually in reference to this Tomb Raider RPG. It is, in fact, from Lara Croft's Tomb Raiders:

I think this ties to what I said a ways back regarding how (techniques associated with) simulationism act as an additional layer of illusionism that strengthen the suspension of disbelief for people of a certain mindset.

Not to nit-pick the example, but it seems to me that this would be a violation of both simulationism and narrativism. For simulationism, the GM acts as the PC's senses (this is also the case outside of simulationism, but not strictly relevant) and so they should have established the ambient...

Not really, no. Disposition is an "inclination towards" or "willingness", not "guarantee of". This is as erroneous as the "it's what my character would do" excuse. The typical counter to that comment is that a person could act in a number of ways and the player chose that particular (disruptive)...

Group checks are simultaneous rolls, not consecutive. To be fair, the assumed 60% success rate was specifically for hits in combat, not ability checks.

I'd too would use Outgunned Adventure over Savage Worlds, but I think Broken Compass is still better for Indiana Jones and Tomb Raider, regardless of TLM's claim about viewing Outgunned as an improvement over it.

I do wonder how little talk there would be about the character if she were a dwarf.

Perhaps, but I don't recall Matt doing this anywhere near as frequently with other players. It may be because Marisha, more than any other player at the table, thinks outside the character sheet, but it always felt to me like Matt was overcompensating in trying to avoid (perceived) favouritism...

I never considered otherwise. I disagree with @Hussar's assertion that "failure will almost always be catastrophic." My objection was to multiple checks for a series of interconnected micro-actions serving a single task. To use an actual example: In campaign 2 of Critical Role, Marisha - as Bo...

This is why I appreciate examples of play with GM commentary on their thought process. I know they take a while to type out, and they end up being wordy enough that people will gloss over them, but I think they're better for understanding than analysing individual mechanics.

I'd rather not remember the Batnipples, thanks.

Which is precisely why asking what would happen on a success aids in understanding. There's going to be difference based on whether the system is task vs conflict resolution. There's likely difference between two different systems that both use task (or conflict) resolution. There's going to be...

In actual play, do you really call for that many checks? I mean, I have a preference for task resolution over conflict resolution, but that seems excessive. It's pretty much setting the PCs up to fail on sheer probability.

I don't think that's a mistake, for two reasons. Firstly, understanding how things would play out on a success gives a contrast to how things play out on a failure that aids in understanding the rules and/or playstyle. Secondly, as established in the tangent with @EzekielRaiden, such questions...

Indeed, it is so good that it can find patterns that aren't even there. Er, others have those players too, right?

Well, in games that use "success with a complication", pretty darn frequently. Though that is one of the more common reasons cited when people bounce off them. The cook example given seems more like success with a complication to me than fail forward as I understand it. With fail forward, I...

Nah, it's just a regular hat that he casts mending on every time he tears it putting it on.