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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="grendel111111" data-source="post: 6802349" data-attributes="member: 6803870">That isn't a flip side. If the mace isn't there and I am not using "fail forward" I still don't get them to  players to roll a search roll. This is an example of a bunch of other techniques being attributed to to fail forward. They are 2 different things. Even in blue box Basic D and D 30+ years ago we were doing this. "We search for secret door", "You search long enough to assure your self there are no secret doors" No dice roll needed.If the DM has decided that the mace is not there no roll anyway. The key for me is that the presence or not of the mace is not dependent on the skill of the searcher. Yes I agree it is a different view of several terms. But for me there is no path of scenes for them to go through. (I don't even arrange my games by "scenes"). It more that lots of things are happening and they choose what they are interested in following. Ironicly I feel hte same about fail forward. I don't mind it so much in one off or very short champaines, but dislike it for long term play.For me more information is always a good thing even if it is bad news. In your game I would most likely want to fail most of my checks to see the story develop more.I do see how it works and why it appeals to you. I just prefer that it ends up with a "thruth" that has been consistant and there from the start.(this was the original bit) When the target is continually shifting to always be in your cross hairs, it's just not as challenging.It's like you are shooting 5 arrows at the wall and then the DM goes up and draws circles around the arrows and says "Well done you hit every target".What I was trying to explain is that if there is no objective truth that you are solving then you are not really solving anything.In your BW game if the balrog kills them then they not only don't find out if he was evil or redeamable but he never was either evil or redeamable. The "clues" to find that out were meaningless. They didn't lead to any actual truth of the situation (And I understand that is why more information isn't always good in your games), but is in mine. We really are playing different games with very different goals we are trying to achieve.</blockquote>

Verification