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: 6802881" data-attributes="member: 6778044">OK, part of my problem is just following this thread...well, threads, there are several semi-related discussions about some related and some not related techniques and it's getting difficult to parse through it all in what spare time I've got...Having said that, I think I'm getting it (really!).I'll start backwards - one skill check is fine for everything if that's OK with your group. Most seem to want a bit more granularity where the skills of the PCs make a difference. Something not as complicated as combat, but more than a single check.Now, for the greater discussion, when you (I) start thinking through the discussion, there are two distinct points of view here - the DM and the players. The techniques in play by the DM in many cases should be largely invisible to the players. They players have no idea whether the mace is there or not, so if the DM decides to either make that decision on the fly, or change his decision on the fly, or if it's written on a page of paper makes no practical difference to the player's experience.There is always a mix of improvising, changing, retconning, and following a predetermined (if not written) idea on the part of the DM. The mix is really a question of what the DM is comfortable with, and falls within their skill set. In theory, the players shouldn't care one way or the other.First, the players may have a preference for the crunchiness of the game. So the number and types of checks will come into play in part based on that. Then there is the matter of trust. The game is dependent on the trust of the DM by the players. Now in my opinion, if the players can't trust the DM to make rolls in secret, then it's probably the wrong group of players with that DM. On the other hand, there are players that aren't comfortable with any DM rolling in secret, that's a different issue outside of the scope here.As long as the players trust the DM and feel that the world is consistent and 'fair' (another loaded term), then how the DM goes about generating that world and story is ultimately irrelevant as well.Since there has finally been a term noted that does apply to this technique, my recommendation (which won't get anywhere, it's OK, I understand), is 'Just In Time' storytelling or DMing, GMing. It's a technique where the DM determines the details of the plot, story, world, situation, whatever on the fly and in the moment. The framework of the world is in place, there are a mix of knowns and unknowns in the world, as there always are, and the results of an event or situation are determined in the moment.I ran another session last night, and I have to admit it didn't go as well as I'd like. I think it was a mix of the players (all essentially new), and to some degree a lack of planning on my part. I had a good idea of what would happen, due to the particular circumstances, but my brain just wasn't working through potential options quickly enough. So I would have benefitted with more 'pre-planned' stuff to drop in. This is part of the skill side of making these techniques work - I didn't have enough stuff percolating in my brain, and the players/characters weren't providing much in the way of inspiration.So now I think I really understand what you specifically are calling 'fail forward' and I also see the, um, legitimacy of the concept of deciding if the mace is there/not there at a given point of time. I guess the benefits are that if you're good at it you probably don't need as much prep time, and also allows more possibilities since you're writing the story in a combination of a reactive/proactive approach.I've been doing this for years since I think it plants the characters more firmly in the world, although not always at the table, a lot of it has been in the planning and thinking between sessions.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification