D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, I know it bothers people, sort of like how I know lots of people don’t like spicy food. I just can’t make myself feel empathy for it.

Well if you don't care, why are you discussing the issue?

 

[FrozenNorth]

It's not the same because the cooks location
does not depend on the players lockpicking skill.

It seems well within the trad approach for the DM to roll a random encounter because of the rogue’s lock picking failure. So how is the cook being the result of a random encounter roll any less « created out of thin air » than in the fail forward example?

 

[TwoSix]

Well if you don't care, why are you discussing the issue?

The reason I do most everything. For the lulz.

 

[TwoSix]

It seems well within the trad approach for the DM to roll a random encounter because of the rogue’s lock picking failure. So how is the cook being the result of a random encounter roll any less « created out of thin air » than in the fail forward example?

Or to ask an even broader question, could you enjoy a trad-style game if you knew the DM was just making everything as they want along?

I ask because no-prep trad/neotrad type games are probably my most common GM style.

 

[Pedantic]

The challenging part is the unnoticed part If anything I would say the dilemma here is if it is the stealth skill or the thief tools skill that is essential for determining the level of silence the character can achieve during their lockpicking?

I worry whenever "challenge" gets used this way. There's nothing challenging about a die roll; you don't demonstrate more or less skill by rolling a 5 or a 15. The challenge is the problem (getting the heirloom off the mantle or whatever) and all of the rolls and action declarations are tools to do that thing.

The challenge is in structuring your choice of tools to get what you want and avoid negative consequences. If you can't do that, then it isn't a challenge at all, it's just a prompt to determine what comes next.

 

[Maxperson]

I kind of agree with − if there is only one rail − then it is still a railroad.

If the players can get on and off the rail easily, then it is an "amusement ride" in a "theme park".

Roller Coasters still have rails. They are just short rails. You can't get off of one in the middle, or at least that would be a very, very bad idea. That would make narrative games with that interpretation of Fail Forwards a series of small railroads, instead of one long one.

But if there are several rails leading to the objective, then it isnt really a railroad. Often enough, players can surprise the DM by achieving the objective in a way that DM didnt expect.

I don't agree with this. In some areas trains are frequent enough that you have multiple railroad tracks running side by side. They are still railroads. What you are describing there is just that the DM has several different ways to force you in the one direction towards your goal.

In the context of "failing forward", the understanding is that the setback causes the players a feeling of helplessness, and they are at loss for what to do next. Then the DM needs to nudge them into a way that the DM has in mind toward the objective.

What I've read of Fail Forward is just that the story continues on in an interesting manner, not that success is guaranteed or that you are moved towards your goal.

If you fail and guards round the corner, you may have to run and escape, which doesn't move you closer to your goal of getting the Rod of Fishing out of the house, but does make things interesting for a while.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It seems exactly like that kind of case to me?

I get the cook wasn't introduced at the same moment the hard move occurs, but making the process into 2 steps by first introducing the cook and then a hard move with the cook doesn't actually solve the issue I'm describing - though it does make for an infinitely better play than introducing the cook and the hard move with the cook all as one move. The issue I'm describing isn't based on the cook introduction and hard move being all at once as one move. The issue is how the cook was introduced in the first place - namely that the cook was only introduced into the scene due to the die failure. On a success the cook wouldn't have been there. I completely understand why you do that and why someone would like this, it makes for dynamic fiction with twists and turns that can mostly and easily be generated in the moment. I like those aspects too. I'm sympathetic to what such systems are trying to do because I like that concept ALOT. But as with most everything, those techniques have drawbacks as well. For me, those drawbacks make the cost more than I'm willing to pay (at least for anything more than as a change of pace system). The insistence by some (not you so much today) that there either aren't drawbacks or that the drawbacks are objectively worth the price is where I push back.

I just didn't find, in practice, that all that much really WAS set out ahead of time, or really could be extrapolated from what was set out beforehand. So, it seems like a lot of stuff was already made up on the fly. I see it as a simple question, I can combine a bunch of guestimating and on-the-fly detail generation into one simple die roll, or spend a bunch of time and energy on charts and tables and whatnot. Either way I end up with some plausible fiction. DW is just a lot easier and then I also get all the focus on the more interesting story.

I just lack the need to feel concerned about what process is used to get to the fiction. I do think there's a place for set fiction, but then we're playing old school skilled play sort of stuff. But in that case, the fiction is only interesting as a game element.

 

[FrozenNorth]

::sigh:: Missing the point. I'm not looking for a reason for the cook to be there or not. I'm saying that when I DM I limit the result of a failure to what makes sense in the context of the action taken.

But you are only considering circumstances in which it DOESN’T make sense. That is the point.

If the situation was that a cook was rolled up on a random table, you would make a proactive effort to come up with a reason that it makes sense in context. Why aren’t you doing that in this case?

Picking a lock makes as much noise as opening the door with a key, someone would need to be practically adjacent to hear it.

This is a perfect example of what I mean. I live in a house built in the 1920s. Whenever someone opens the front door, I can clearly hear it even if I am in the kitchen 50’ away.

Rather than taking as the assumption that many doors are pretty noticeable when unlocked or opened, you proceed from the assumption that only someone adjacent to the door can hear it. Starting with this assumption, the conclusion is invariably that fail-forward is implausible.

How do you think it works?

Skills in D&D are fairly broad, so rolling a Lockpicking check is more than simply physically adjusting the tumblers. Here are 3 reasons it might make sense:

• The cook is an elf that is trancing and doesn’t need to sleep. The house is pretty quiet at night, so the unlocking and the opening of the door is noticeable and they come to investigate.
• The rogue unlocks the door but fails to grease the hinges. The door lets out a loud squeak as it is opened.
• The rogue unlocks the door, but fails to notice the small alarm Sigil. The silent alarm notifies the cook in the other room.

 

[Maxperson]

The challenging part is the unnoticed part If anything I would say the dilemma here is if it is the stealth skill or the thief tools skill that is essential for determining the level of silence the character can achieve during their lockpicking?

My ruling would be to use lockpicking. The character is taking exaggerated care and time to move the tumblers slow enough to be quiet about it. That to me would be skill with the tool, even though being quiet is usually stealth.

Just like skills can use different stats like a dart game being Athletics(dex) and weightlifting being Athletics(str), I think sometimes you'd use a skill that is unusual for the situation, like lockpicking to be stealthy with lockpicks.

It would certainly be reasonable to see some DMs requiring a stealth check as well as a lockpicking attempt, though.

Another consideration is that I like to minimize the amount of rolling involved. I'd rather see one check made than two if I can help it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Because the cook is there regardless of the player's roll.

Haven't we been through this?

But they weren’t. They were only there because the GM made a random encounter roll and rolled 82: cook. And the GM only made the random encounter roll because the PC was trying to break into the house!