Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6793152" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I agree with your disagreement. I should have worded it slightly differently.A skill check doesn't have to be so narrowly defined, and it shouldn't be presented as if that's the only option.What I was really getting at is that a lot of people present rules like skill checks as being an either/or scenario, and claim that the rules restrict them to only that interpretation. Then I've seen newbie DMs (including a few threads ongoing right now), adhering to an interpretation of the rules that is limiting at best, and killing the game at worst. So I feel it's important for people, especially those new to the game, to understand that the DM always has the option to consider more than just an either/or scenario.Now the proponents of so-called fail forward mechanics will still argue that it's a better approach. I an inclined to agree, recognizing that game design is always evolving, and that many things that seem obvious and make sense to us now, were new and controversial a decade or two ago. As a result, there will be a lot of people who don't agree with the approach.I will also point out that the concept is still a relatively new one, at least in terms of being laid out as an over-arching rule concept. And I think there are still some general flaws in the usual presentation of the concept that keeps it from being a more universal approach to rules systems.Other than the terminology, the descriptions lean heavily on the idea that they are used in certain types of games - usually sandbox, anti-railroading, anti-prewritten scenario, and similar terms. They also lean heavily on the 'always say yes' methodology.First, I'd argue that for it to evolve into a universal technique, it needs to be recognized that it is a universal concept, and works equally well in published scenarios, pre-written home scenarios, random scenarios, etc. It's actually very simple: A skill check is about more than just a single task at a single point in a time. A skill check can be used based on a broader context, looking at the circumstance, not just the skill in question. This is something that has been part of the game since the beginning.'I kick in the door.' Makes a Strength check, and fails.'The door is stronger than you think, and doesn't budge.' DM also makes a check to see if the orcs down the hall hear the attempt.The reality is that the second check isn't necessarily needed. As a DM, you have a pretty good idea how far the sound of a strong kick on a door will travel, and you know what the orcs are doing and how attentive they are. Failure to kick in the door is enough to warrant considering whether they hear it or not, and you can use the amount of the failure to help determine that. I get that the two are only indirectly connected, and that more checks could give you potentially more possibilities.The orcs may be alerted even upon successfully kicking in the door. That the orcs are alerted shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone, because kicking in a door isn't a very stealthy way to get in.If they were trying to pick a lock and enter stealthily, you could save some steps by indicating that a minor failure is a success in picking the lock, but the door squeaks loudly as they open it, alerting the orcs. A major failure indicates that picking the lock didn't work, you can continue to try (in which case I'd just use my time-based option), or you can try an alternative way to enter. Yes, this could be a series of checks (failure, success, stealth, perception), but it doesn't need to be that complicated. The action moves forward, and an interesting scene is set through the use of a single check which is determining 'did they successfully bypass the lock and enter the room without detection' rather than 'you failed, try again, OK the lock is open, what do you do? Enter stealthily, etc. Also, do you make a Stealth/Perception check on the failed check, successful check, opening the door, all three, or two of the three, etc.? Neither approach is inherently better or worse. But the first option streamlines it and moves the game forward without extraneous checks that as a whole don't add any more value to the game and the story than the first option. But you're writing a story, and part of a good story is, well, a good story. If you make a check for the orcs, and they fail, then there's no additional story, no additional complication. But if you go with the (aargh!) fail forward approach, then the story evolves based around that single roll. This is simpler, streamlined, and also allows the DM to go with what makes sense rather than just more die rolls.Second, proponents of the technique, and the very description of the technique, needs to retain the original possibilities and expand upon them. Most of the discussions tend to either ignore, or specifically advise against outright failure. I think that is a mistake. I think that failure is an option, and although sometimes that option isn't the most interesting option, it still must be an option - provided it serves a purpose. This speaks in part about good design in where an obstacle must serve a purpose. My opinion on what serves a purpose, though, often goes against what is usually recommended.One example is a locked door that serves as the entrance to a dungeon. Outright failure is not an option, they must get through the door. But if the rogue fails to pick the lock there are still other options. A knock spell. Kicking in the door. Finding an alternative entrance, etc. Fail forward proponents would probably recommend not having an outright fail option.Second, current design concepts recommend placing things like locked doors unless there's a purpose for them. This also seems to be a common recommendation regarding random-based adventures. But people lock doors. It might just be their bedroom, with little of value, and doesn't further the story as well. But it does further the goal of building a believable and immersive world.As for fate. If you are using fate to avoid tying it to skill checks, then no, you wouldn't want to tie it only to failed skill checks. But, if you're using the 'failed forward' concept, then one option you have as a DM is to describe a failure that is foiled by fate. This usually feels a bit more fair to the players, than when one of them succeeds, and finds that their success is suddenly negated due to fate. As I said, this could potentially be viewed as 'more realistic' and if that's what you want, then that's fine.I'm not a fan of disassociated mechanics in general, so I haven't implemented a fate mechanic, and certainly am not interested in a banked fate system for my game. YMMV of course.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification