Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7054724" data-attributes="member: 6785785">So the player's roll actually does determine if the receptacle exists, not if the PC sees the receptacle. Or rather, not simply if the PC sees it...the roll determines both the presence and the viewing of it.So setting this DC with about a 1% chance of failure is more meaningful than simply saying &quot;yup, it's there&quot;? I mean, clearly the player is up to something by asking....so Justin saying yes would seem to save some time and no the really impact the drama. In your failed check/fail forward example, I don't see how it's the check that really does all that much. In this example, you've said the the result of the roll is pretty much a given. And I don't think that you mentioned anything about the degrees of failure or success based on how far the roll was from the DC...so all the alternatives (the broken chamber pot, etc.) are all still the product of DM judgment. This is where I question your choice to label it as a railroad. So far, I am not seeing a meaningful difference. But the DM need not say no. He can say yes....the equivalent of setting such a low DC as to make the check virtually meaningless. So why bother with the check? I don't think it adds any real drama in this sense. This is not to say that I always advocate for DM fiat or anything like that. Not even that this should be a general approach. I think there are absolutely times to call for a check in order to determine success or failure. And I like alternative paths being presented instead of a dead end...I just don't see the required connection between the dead end point and DM judgment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7054724, member: 6785785"] So the player's roll actually does determine if the receptacle exists, not if the PC sees the receptacle. Or rather, not simply if the PC sees it...the roll determines both the presence and the viewing of it. So setting this DC with about a 1% chance of failure is more meaningful than simply saying "yup, it's there"? I mean, clearly the player is up to something by asking....so Justin saying yes would seem to save some time and no the really impact the drama. In your failed check/fail forward example, I don't see how it's the check that really does all that much. In this example, you've said the the result of the roll is pretty much a given. And I don't think that you mentioned anything about the degrees of failure or success based on how far the roll was from the DC...so all the alternatives (the broken chamber pot, etc.) are all still the product of DM judgment. This is where I question your choice to label it as a railroad. So far, I am not seeing a meaningful difference. But the DM need not say no. He can say yes....the equivalent of setting such a low DC as to make the check virtually meaningless. So why bother with the check? I don't think it adds any real drama in this sense. This is not to say that I always advocate for DM fiat or anything like that. Not even that this should be a general approach. I think there are absolutely times to call for a check in order to determine success or failure. And I like alternative paths being presented instead of a dead end...I just don't see the required connection between the dead end point and DM judgment. [/QUOTE]

Verification