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

[pemerton]

Though one can make the argument that at least RQ still does stop-motion, it just does it in smaller pieces. That said, I think the bigger pieces you do that in the worse the result, so that's not a minor thing.

The strike ranks in RQ are meant to try and push towards simultaneous resolution, without quite getting there. RM has so many different published initiative and action systems its hard to generalise about it, but they also aim to get things towards simultaneity.

BW Fight! uses blind declaration over 3 volleys (with actions-per-volley being stat dependent, a little bit like Champions), with revelation of the declarations being volley-by-volley, and resolution being simultaneous per action in each volley. A key strategy is therefore to place your second action for a volley in a volley where the opponent has only one action, such that your action can go through unopposed.

 

[AlViking]

And that's fine as far as it goes.

Except that in practice, "won't succeed 100%" actually means "won't succeed ever". Because the DM is very poor at calculating odds and piles on check after check in order to get the "scramble to figure out having to do something else".

IOW, most of the time, the best solution is to assume failure and go in guns blazing. Because failure is virtually guaranteed anyway.

I stated that failure will often only mean a minor setback or missing out on a benefit. A single failure in a chain of checks only means complete failure under rare situations where the player is attempting something truly dangerous and likely to fail. I will tell them ahead of time if that's the case.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It on the other hand is impossible to make the argument that Daggerheart does stop-motion as opposed to dramatic and chaotic combat. The initiative system is "whoever wants to go goes" with the GM getting a go when the players miss or roll with fear or the GM spends a fear point.

I'm not going to comment on game I do not own nor have read, though I'm not usually a fan of that sort of initiative.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The strike ranks in RQ are meant to try and push towards simultaneous resolution, without quite getting there. RM has so many different published initiative and action systems its hard to generalise about it, but they also aim to get things towards simultaneity.

Its been so long since I read any of the RM systems I didn't feel competent to comment on it.

BW Fight! uses blind declaration over 3 volleys (with actions-per-volley being stat dependent, a little bit like Champions), with revelation of the declarations being volley-by-volley, and resolution being simultaneous per action in each volley. A key strategy is therefore to place your second action for a volley in a volley where the opponent has only one action, such that your action can go through unopposed.

I think I've seen something like that elsewhere, though I can't place where off the top of my head.

 

[Hussar]

I stated that failure will often only mean a minor setback or missing out on a benefit. A single failure in a chain of checks only means complete failure under rare situations where the player is attempting something truly dangerous and likely to fail. I will tell them ahead of time if that's the case.

Except in your examples, you simply piled on yet more skill checks, the failure of which will result in total failure - the vase gets dropped, the guards get woken up, whatever.

Sure, you added an extra step. Doesn't really matter. The players will still almost assuredly fail.

If you don't believe me, track it for the next little while. Any time your party attempts an extended series of checks, track how often they actually succeed. I'll bet dollars to donuts it's very close to zero.

 

[Hussar]

One of the absolute best pieces of DMing advice I ever took from a module (and I have no idea what module this came from, it was too long ago) was, "So long as the players come up with some sort of plan, they succeed. Don't worry too much about the details. It's far more interesting to see what happens when they actually achieve their goal than forcing them to fail by picking apart their ideas."

 

[AlViking]

Except in your examples, you simply piled on yet more skill checks, the failure of which will result in total failure - the vase gets dropped, the guards get woken up, whatever.

Sure, you added an extra step. Doesn't really matter. The players will still almost assuredly fail.

If you don't believe me, track it for the next little while. Any time your party attempts an extended series of checks, track how often they actually succeed. I'll bet dollars to donuts it's very close to zero.

Since you've never played in my games you can't really pass judgment. I won't say people always succeed as well as they would like because if they did there wouldn't be any challenge. But far more often than not, even when they really blow it they still figure out a way to come out on top.

I want the players to succeed, I just don't guarantee it.

 

[Hussar]

Since you've never played in my games you can't really pass judgment. I won't say people always succeed as well as they would like because if they did there wouldn't be any challenge. But far more often than not, even when they really blow it they still figure out a way to come out on top.

I want the players to succeed, I just don't guarantee it.

True, I've never played in your game, but, by your admission, they are failing fairly often. The idea that there is only challenge in failure is one that is so incredibly ingrained in the hobby that it's almost a truism. And it's incredibly toxic. It permeates so much of play and is the primary reason why the magic system in D&D has become the default means of solving every problem.

 

[Maxperson]

The “we” thing is causing confusion again. @AlViking repeatedly asked if the guard would have shown up in @pemerton ‘s game on a successful roll. When he wasn’t provided with an answer, he pointed it out several times.

That’s what I was addressing, and the continued insistence that the guard would “not show up on a success” which both you and he have said.

No. The only confusion is yours. I informed you a few posts up what he meant by that, and he liked my post indicating that I was correct. I suggest you follow the chain up until you see it, because this repeated fixation on @pemerton's game is starting to feel disingenuous.

 

[Maxperson]

An INUS condition is not a sufficient condition. It is an insufficient but necessary component of an unnecessary but sufficient condition.

In the punch example, clearly there is a sufficient condition for the witness punching you - if there wasn't, they wouldn't have. Your provocative action is not, in itself, a sufficient condition. But it is a necessary component of that sufficient condition - the other principle necessary component will be the witness's cantankerous disposition.

To be a sufficient condition, it must guarantee that what follows WILL happen. Punching someone does not guarantee that you will be tackled. Just because the tackle happens, doesn't mean that it was guaranteed to happen by the punch.

If I roll a d6, it is not guaranteed that a 5 will result. If a 5 results, the d6 roll doesn't retroactively become a guarantee of the 5.