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

[Lanefan]

And this is probably why you had to waste two and a half frustrating--your words--sessions trying to solve a children's riddle--instead of actually playing the game and doing things that were not frustrating.

Given that game, odds are high it would have been every bit as frustrating only in different ways.

 

[AlViking]

Why can’t the failed check just determine that the cook is there?

But wait isn’t that still quantum. A dice deciding whether the cook is there or somewhere else?

The cook only comes into existence because of an unrelated event. The bears are going to be in the woods whether or not you go for a hike.

If you like that form of fail forward, go for it. I wouldn't care for it as a player or GM.

 

[zakael19]

Why can’t the failed check just determine that the cook is there?

But wait isn’t that still quantum. A dice deciding whether the cook is there or somewhere else?

I’m reliably told that adversary rosters with interesting encounters off a randomized chance to appear are not quantum and make a dungeon feel “lived in.”

 

[Maxperson]

I see a huge difference between an ogre which appears in front of you no matter what you do, and a cook who appears in response to a die roll. How is the latter different from any old random encounter?

First, the cook isn't rolled on a wandering monster table, it's appearing in response to a completely unconnected pick lock roll.

Second, it's the middle of the night when the cook would be in a deep sleep, yet the roll teleports the cook to the kitchen awake and ready to spot the party, because pick lock fail. It's not as if being in the kitchen during sleep hours is some routine thing for the cook. There's almost no chance of the cook being there.

The cook is both asleep upstairs and in the kitchen simultaneously and her location won't be fixed until someone tries to pick the lock and we see the roll.

Edit: You also seem to be conflating illusionism with quantum. While the ogre is quantum like the cook, it's also being used for illusionism which is why you see a difference.

 

[zakael19]

SCHRODINGER’S D&D COOK!

How did this white room example get so contrived

 

[Maxperson]

SCHRODINGER’S D&D COOK!

How did this white room example get so contrived

A failed lockpick check.

 

[FrogReaver]

The cook only comes into existence because of an unrelated event. The bears are going to be in the woods whether or not you go for a hike.

Why do you think the cook only comes into existence because of the roll instead of simply already existing and just being at that location because of the roll?

If you like that form of fail forward, go for it. I wouldn't care for it as a player or GM.

I think I’ve been clear I’m not a fan of fail forward. But I don’t think you are being fair to it.

 

[The Firebird]

In practical terms I think that’s probably just above a non-existent chance of occurring, in which case the gameplay difference seems to be a bit more theoretical (and maybe just knowing it was a possibility is good enough), but in actual play you are probably not learning anything beforehand that could let you avoid the cook. Anything that might let you do so would just a blind luck and not a meaningful decision.

Well, no. You could listen at the door or try to get the work schedule ahead of time or ask (or coerce) the night watchman if anyone came in at an odd hour or send a druid to scout in advance or scry or smell if anything is cooking...in short there are a lot of choices you could have made to get that information.

But in the lock picking case, none of these would reveal the cooks presence because the cook wasn't present.

 

[Lanefan]

That doesn't make any sense. If you succeeded in your roll, there shouldn't be any complication attached to it. Success with a complication would be if you failed, or maybe if you failed by a very narrow margin.

Nope. You can't succeed - even with a complication - unless the roll says you succeed. Also, I don't buy that success always has to mean perfect success, a narrow success can be mitigated by complications just like a narrow failure can be mitigated by benefits as long as the root success or fail result of the action that triggered the roll is respected.

To do it otherwise gives the DM carte-blanche to invalidate or ignore rolls whenever it suits him to do so, and that's just bad news all over the place.

It's the same reason I don't like ANY mechanics (e.g. metacurrency, Hobbit luck, etc.) that allow a roll to be changed or re-rolled after its result is known. Once you commit to a roll its result should be completely binding on the players, the DM, and the fiction. Wanna change the odds? Go ahead, but only until the die hits the table. After that, it's too late.

Otherwise, why use dice?

 

[TwoSix]

There are bears in the forest, whether or not you happen to see one is quite random but they exist whether you see them or not. The cook only exists because of a failed check.

I don’t think that’s true. The cook may not be statted or planned previously, but it exists as a concept just like the millions of other potential NPCs that could be introduced during the game.