NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6815679" data-attributes="member: 177">And here, I have to say that, once again, some folks (like you and pemerton) take the discussion into forms I think are not normally taken at actual tables.  Raise your hand if you've ever discussed, "limitations of statement of intent," with your players?   I'm going to guess maybe you and pemerton, and *virtually nobody else* uses that kind of language with their players.  You'd do well to bring it back down to Earth.Now, allow me also to rephrase my question, such that it is more clear.  You said:"But what your pre-authoring did was say "Ok, you rolled a success on your desert crossing check, but now there's mountains, so you have to make a climbing check also." You increased the odds of the players failing without telling them ahead of the first roll."And I asked, "And?"  You didn't actually say why this was a point to raise.  It *reads* as an implication that the player should generally know the odds of failure for extended endeavors before they begin, and I don't think that's supported by the general RPG oeuvre.  Not knowing how hard things will be is pretty nominal.  We keep stats and maps secret from players *all the time*, so you're goig to have to do some explaining as to why here, it is worth pointing out.And so is, "You run into a chasm as you are crossing the desert".  So, in fail forward, these are okay, but they are somehow something to be pointed out in a pre-authored scenario?  Reductio ad absurdum does have its places - the chasm and the monster use the same logic.  So, I repeat - if the monster is okay, why does the chasm bear discussion?</blockquote>

Verification