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

[Lanefan]

OK, change of tack.

You are in combat. You're down to your last few hit points--one more blow will kill you--but you know your opponent will die if you hit them one more time as well (maybe you have a trick up your sleeve; maybe you've been counting their hit points and know how many they started with). And your opponent is powerful enough that they will almost certainly hit you, even on a bad roll.

You have the initiative.

You roll to attack. You miss.

Because you missed your attack, you didn't kill your opponent, and therefore, you will almost certainly die when they hit you.

Ok?

This is a fairly common "next hit wins" situation that I've seen loads of times. It comes down to a pure gamble: you hit, and win, or you miss, and die; unless your luck runs high and the foe also misses, meaning the gamble is repeated next round.

I don't see how this relates to the discussion about a door and a burning house. What am I missing?

 

[hawkeyefan]

yelling "SURPRISE!" before annihilating the group with his atomic breath if they want. What I'm talking about is the approach I take to the game and no, I don't add things like a guard that's going to show up solely because you failed to pick a lock.

Right. Under what circumstances do you add something like a guard?

But we've explained this hundreds of times now. Do you have an actual question or are you just trying to wear us down to the point where we wave the white flag and surrender before Godzilla jumps out of a closet and yells "SURPRISE!"?

Yes, see above. I asked a question that you failed to answer.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes... but again, you missed my point.

The GM can add anything at any time, right? Or must they have everything pre-determined in map and key format? Is the GM allowed to introduce new elements as needed?

Can the GM just add a cook to a situation?

I've just been given heat upthread for not following the fiction closely enough, this - given the house has otherwise been narrated as still, dark, and quiet - seems like an example of the same. Ditto if there's something even more outlandish in there like a dragon or a vorpal bunny or Luke Skywalker.

No, cause and effect can be direct. It can also be indirect. If you punch me in the eye, yes, I may have a black eye. But then a bystander may tackle you to the ground. Or you may get arrested. Or I may retaliate and break your knee.

Then maybe you lose your job because of your violent behavior. You spend tons of money on legal fees, and that leaves you without savings, so you have to sell your house.

No one in the world... except folks in this thread... would ever describe those things as being unconnected to you punching me in the eye. Or say that those are not consequences of your action.

Thing is, if one looks at this purely in game terms there's other action declarations and resolutions in between the immediate consequence (you take damage and get a black eye) and any downstream consequences; and each of those has its own immediate consequence(s) that may change the course of what happens next. The bystander needs to roll for success in tackling you. You need to roll for success on your retaliation attempt. If the cops try to arrest you you have the choice of surrendering quietly or resisting arrest or trying to flee or whatever, all of which lead to more actions-and-resolutions with immediate consequences and more possible paths the situation may take.

So sure, all the dominoes are connected and the first one was you punching me in the eye; but we don't know which or how many dominoes will fall or where the sequence of events leads to until looking at it all in hindsight.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes... but again, you missed my point.

The GM can add anything at any time, right? Or must they have everything pre-determined in map and key format? Is the GM allowed to introduce new elements as needed?

Can the GM just add a cook to a situation?

Sure. He can also add Godzilla. The ability to add stuff doesn't inherently make it a good idea.

No, cause and effect can be direct. It can also be indirect. If you punch me in the eye, yes, I may have a black eye. But then a bystander may tackle you to the ground. Or you may get arrested. Or I may retaliate and break your knee.

And guess what I didn't cause? That bystander to tackle me. That was entirely his decision, not at all forced(caused) by me. Same with the arrest. Someone calling the cops isn't forced by me in any way. Only the direct black eye was caused by me.

Then maybe you lose your job because of your violent behavior. You spend tons of money on legal fees, and that leaves you without savings, so you have to sell your house.

Even less caused by me. I'm neither responsible for, nor have caused what other people decided to do. There's a distant connection, but no cause and effect with those things.

No one in the world... except folks in this thread... would ever describe those things as being unconnected to you punching me in the eye. Or say that those are not consequences of your action.

And this is a Strawman. I said they were connected distantly, there's just no cause and effect going on.

All of which is just to point out that the criticism that "fail forward" or similar game processes result in "unconnected" events is inaccurate. It's a poorly thought-out criticism.

Ooh, further Strawman. We're saying the failed attempt doesn't cause it, and we are correct.

You ought to respond to what we are saying

But you've created the distance by adding in that they're upstairs and all that. What if they're literally on the other side of the door, unable to open it? Then there's no such distance.

I didn't. The example I saw had them upstairs, which is why using the upstairs window as a backup came into the picture(not by me).

To answer your question, though, if they are literally on the other side of the door, they just reach out and unlock it, then walk outside.

So you connect the appearance of the cook to the die roll in fail forward. Okay. Let's say that the die roll is the Cause, and the appearance of the cook is the Effect.

What do you connect it to in the case of the GM deciding that there's a cook there? What's the Cause in this case?

No idea.

The DM would have determined that before an attempt ever happened. Maybe the 5% chance was successful, so he rolled to see which person was awake. The cook came up, so he decided that the cook woke up to go to the bathroom. Then he rolled to see if she went back to bed or did something else and that was successful, so she ended up hungry and down in the kitchen at 2am and will spend half an hour making and eating a snack.

Later when the PC comes to pick the lock, if he arrives at 1:20am, she isn't there regardless of the roll. If it's 2am to 2:30am she is there regardless of the roll. If he comes after, she's not there.

That's just one possible scenario. I have no idea what the specific DM would have used to determine why she would be there at the time the PCs are.

What won't decide it, though, will be the roll. She isn't going to be there on a failed check and gone on a successful one.

 

[Maxperson]

The GM can have Godzilla jump out of a closet yelling "SURPRISE!" before annihilating the group with his atomic breath if they want. What I'm talking about is the approach I take to the game and no, I don't add things like a guard that's going to show up solely because you failed to pick a lock.

Wait! You used Godzilla, too!?

 

[Maxperson]

It's not just granularity. I mean, that could factor in, but what seems more important to me is the focus on what the character is doing, as a motivating force in play. I'm not just trying to open a lock, I'm trying to recover the perloined letter which exonerates me from treason so I can go plead with the king to release my sister from bondage to the evil duke, as I swore I would.

So we can go up and down the layers of intent, but whatever actions I take will have some sort of impact at all those levels. Furthermore the GM is focused on all this stuff too. If my lock picking action fails, then I come into the entryway and smell smoke, better get that letter quick! What's not as it seems here? That smells like sandalwood and nightmare weed! Bad!

Right. I understand the philosophy behind your playstyle.

This debate, though, does come down to granularity, since that's what my side of this is looking at and using. It's the heart of the differences here and largely why this discussion has lasted as long as it has.

And again, I'm not saying that our style is better. Neither style is better or worse. I'm just saying that we use different things to determine if the cook or letter is there, or if the family is saved.

 

[Maxperson]

But we've explained this hundreds of times now. Do you have an actual question or are you just trying to wear us down to the point where we wave the white flag and surrender before Godzilla jumps out of a closet and yells "SURPRISE!"?

 

[AlViking]

Right. Under what circumstances do you add something like a guard?



Yes, see above. I asked a question that you failed to answer.

I don't use a map and key, I don't get to that level of detail in my planning most of the time. On the other hand I know where relevant NPCs and monsters are and what could trigger a reaction. But I wouldn't add a guard based on a failed check along the lines of failing to open a lock. Failing to disarm an alarm trap might summon guards but that's because I have it in my note that guards arrive in 2d6 rounds after the alarm is set off. There has to be some event in-world that the guard (if there are any) can perceive. Even if you set off the loudest alarm spell possible, if it's in an uninhabited empty castle no guards will come running because the guards aren't going to poof into existence any more than Godzilla.

Occasionally I have to improvise just about everything but even then it's all based on in-world logic not the logic of "You failed a roll so therefore there are consequences not tied to the failure."

Are you tired of trying to set up "gotcha's" that you can pounce on when I make an unclear response yet? Because I'm tired of answering them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've just been given heat upthread for not following the fiction closely enough, this - given the house has otherwise been narrated as still, dark, and quiet - seems like an example of the same. Ditto if there's something even more outlandish in there like a dragon or a vorpal bunny or Luke Skywalker.

Adding a cook to a kitchen seems similar to you as adding a dragon or Luke Skywalker?

Okay, I guess.

Thing is, if one looks at this purely in game terms there's other action declarations and resolutions in between the immediate consequence (you take damage and get a black eye) and any downstream consequences; and each of those has its own immediate consequence(s) that may change the course of what happens next. The bystander needs to roll for success in tackling you. You need to roll for success on your retaliation attempt. If the cops try to arrest you you have the choice of surrendering quietly or resisting arrest or trying to flee or whatever, all of which lead to more actions-and-resolutions with immediate consequences and more possible paths the situation may take.

So sure, all the dominoes are connected and the first one was you punching me in the eye; but we don't know which or how many dominoes will fall or where the sequence of events leads to until looking at it all in hindsight.

I'm trying to look at it not in game terms, but rather as a person with a reasonable understanding of cause and effect.

I'm trying to see how people will classify cause and effect. And how an action may CONNECT to a later event. The criticism is that the events are UNCONNECTED. However, you seem to admit that they are all CONNECTED.

That some of those CONNECTED things have uncertainty regarding the outcome... i.e. can the bystander succeed in tackling you... doesn't make them UNCONNECTED. Again, I'm thinking of all of this simply as I would as a person in the real world who has no idea that RPGs even exist.

Now, to bring it to gaming... it is a preference for all of those individual events to be broken down into discrete instances requiring a roll. Some games will do that, others will not, some will be in the middle. There's nothing wrong with any of those preferences.

But when someone says "I prefer to roll for each individual action because I don't like when consequences are UNCONNECTED to the action" it is simply wrong. Because they are CONNECTED.

Is that clearer?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't use a map and key, I don't get to that level of detail in my planning most of the time. On the other hand I know where relevant NPCs and monsters are and what could trigger a reaction. But I wouldn't add a guard based on a failed check along the lines of failing to open a lock. Failing to disarm an alarm trap might summon guards but that's because I have it in my note that guards arrive in 2d6 rounds after the alarm is set off. There has to be some event in-world that the guard (if there are any) can perceive. Even if you set off the loudest alarm spell possible, if it's in an uninhabited empty castle no guards will come running because the guards aren't going to poof into existence any more than Godzilla.

Occasionally I have to improvise just about everything but even then it's all based on in-world logic not the logic of "You failed a roll so therefore there are consequences not tied to the failure."

Are you tired of trying to set up "gotcha's" that you can pounce on when I make an unclear response yet? Because I'm tired of answering them.

This isn't a gotcha. It's a question. One you repeatedly don't answer to instead answer something else I didn't ask.

Under what circumstances would you add something like a guard to the fiction?

Please note, I am very aware that you would NOT do so on a failed roll. You have answered that unasked question several times now. I'm hoping you'll answer the question that I asked.

So, when would you add a guard? Or a cook? Or whatever new element you thought might be needed?