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

[Micah Sweet]

You don't like a specific rule in the game. So? I'm using the rules for the game I choose to play, if you choose to play a different game then follow those rules. On the other hand a quick search for "how long does it take to pick a lock" gets answers as low as 5 seconds for a modern lock, although it does vary significantly.

Also, picking a lock is just one example. As always if you have better or different examples feel free to provide them.

Also perfectly fine to change specific rules if you don't like them. I do it all the time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why would it? You can always do something else.

I have to point out outside of sandboxes, that isn't always true. Sometimes there's no apparent path forward at all if a particular problem fails out. That's why I talk about how you should take care to avoid such single-path-of-failure situations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have to point out outside of sandboxes, that isn't always true. Sometimes there's no apparent path forward at all if a particular problem fails out. That's why I talk about how you should take care to avoid such single-path-of-failure situations.

This is one reason why I always prefer to run sandbox.

 

[Enrahim]

Except that if the roll fails, neither the players nor the GM will know what would have been in the kitchen on a success. <snip>

I think this is the fourth time in this thread I point out it is well known that if the success situation is not known, there is no immediate problem. Then the only related problem appears if this technique is used so much that there become a pattern of skill success = everything fine, skill failure = some peculiar coincidence happen to cause a complication. This will cause cognitive dissonance if you expect a living world experience. If you expect a drama filled game revolving around your character there also is no problem whatsoever.

And as many of us have said before, this is only one possibility. If you think it's a stupid idea that there would be a cook in the kitchen at 2 am, then pick another complication! Squeaky hinges, something in front of the door that gets bonked when the door is open, a cat or dog, a night patrol outside who sees them, a trap that the PC didn't search for, a broken lockpick, a lost item, it takes far longer than usual so they are at risk of running out of time, etc., etc.

And this seem is just a simplified reiteration over the idea that there won't be any problem if you get rid of the "peculiar" in my previous paragraph. And the good news is that now you seem up to speed! What we are currently trying to map out is exactly where does the boundary between results that is "peculear" and not. It seem like most now accept the notion that the extreme example with an obvious and known conjuration of a cook on success can be considered "peculiar" in the context of living world play. The interesting question then is, how about your suggestions here? Looking over them I would think the order of "peculiarity" from highest to lowest would be something like:
1: trap
2: blocking object
3: lost item
4: Squeeking door
5: Outside observer
6: Broken lockpick
7: Time consumption.
My impression that all but the most strict could accept 6 and 7. 4 and 5 seem like can be ok for some of the more moderate. 3 is an interesting one, as I have not seen that one discussed so far in the thread. 2 might possibly be acceptable if the object is something that make sense to be there also on success without making sound. 1 I think is as bad as the cook.

Thank you! I think this can be a constructive contribution for further discussion!

 

[The Firebird]

Convince the GM X will make for a better story isn't how any of this works.

In games that utilize intent like Daggerheart, Burning Wheel and L5R 5e what matters is credibility. Given what's been established is that intention a credible one?

In games like Monsterhearts it's all about establishing the fictional positioning so a given basic move will apply.

Isn't it? Maybe the phrasing isn't quite right. My experience is that trying to succeed at a task in these games becomes a game of "what is the maximally beneficial thing I can say to the GM that they will find credible". Or "how can I convince the GM that my fictional positioning allows me to use my skill with the biggest bonus". That sort of thing. That's how I naturally think about it, and then I feel I start playing the GM rather than the world.

For example, in the rune case, I could have said "hey GM, maybe the runes are a powerful spell my character has been looking for" or "maybe the runes are a riddle and if you answer it right a door opens with great treasure" or something like that. I choose my goal (escape, treasure, magic), then I phrase things in a way that convinces the GM to give me what I want (on a success).

If I want magic, I have to convince the GM my character getting magic in this circumstance is reasonable...etc.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm not annoyed at ways other games choose to apply to solve the issue, I just don't like the tools they use to prevent it. I don't think anything needs to be baked into the rules, GMs just need advice on what to do to prevent failure stopping the game.

How many GMs will read advice sections, blogs, books, etc., and take it to heart, versus how many will read the rules and follow them?

Heck, how many GMs actually read the GM section? In D&D, it's notorious that even DMs don't read the DMG beyond the treasure tables.

You don't like a specific rule in the game. So? I'm using the rules for the game I choose to play, if you choose to play a different game then follow those rules. On the other hand a quick search for "how long does it take to pick a lock" gets answers as low as 5 seconds for a modern lock, although it does vary significantly.

Using modern tools, of course, in a low-stress environment. You'll note the times can get very, very high.

Also, picking a lock is just one example. As always if you have better or different examples feel free to provide them.

I have, multiple times.

 

[AlViking]

I agree. "Nothing happens" must leave room for the game to continue.

Why? It happens now and then in games i run and play. The players take a step back and figure out an alternative. I can't remember ever hitting a situation where a single failed check ended the game.

 

[AlViking]

Also perfectly fine to change specific rules if you don't like them. I do it all the time.

I don't have a ton of house rules myself but I always make it clear what they are and if it's something that doesn't come up often I'll remind them.

My point was that unless you change the rule, picking a lock takes 1 turn on success or failure so there's no increased chance of being noticed on a failure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

With the skill itself? I think its a bit broader than how D&D handles things, and it depends on the game. In theory no.

But that's one of the differences in games, D&D can be quite granular in it's approach its more about emulating specific actions not broad narrative goals. Burglary could cover a half dozen D&D skills. The skill was mentioned in this post


Pemerton is obviously describing a different game where a burglary skill would cover what would be multiple actions while also being quite specific for a breaking and entry. It might make sense in a game focused on a more specific genre and probably a narrative style of game.

D&D isn't that game it's an adventure game where picking a lock may have nothing at all to do with burglary, it's a very restricted action. Picking a lock may be part of a burglary but it's only going to be one step along the way, other skills and other characters are likely to have just as much or more impact on how the scenario unfolds. A burglary skill to me sounds like something used in a game that focuses on the story, not the adventure.

A burglary roll rolls up a lot of things into a bundle and implies a whole different approach from D&D. It's also not a "limitation" in any sense because a game that would include it is just trying to do something different. Whether or not D&D could consolidate it's skill list is a different issue, but a burglary skill would put the game in a whole different category. Perhaps in the game where burglary was a skill unlike D&D fail forward would be core to the rules of the game.

What edition are you talking about? 4e and 5e both have very general skills that easily apply to an approach or intent type method. This is quite compatible with Narrativist techniques, though 5e's introduction of tools and renaming Thievery to Slight of Hand is IMHO a regression.

 

[AlViking]

I have to point out outside of sandboxes, that isn't always true. Sometimes there's no apparent path forward at all if a particular problem fails out. That's why I talk about how you should take care to avoid such single-path-of-failure situations.

I would consider that a failure of module design, not a failure of the rules.