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

[AlViking]

Unless you can destroy the chest, unscrew the lock from the chest, take the hinges off the chest, or somehow use magic (there's many options) to open the chest and-or get the grenade out.

Or unless (if you have time) you go and find a better lock-picker.

Or unless you can find another way of dealing with the monster that doesn't require the grenade.

Indeed. Mission failure is always an option.

I'm thinking the bad design is that the chest that can't be smashed open because it will cause the grenade to explode or something.

Like I said, I've never seen the check failing game ending boogeyman so I'm grasping at straws man.

 

[Gimby]

I'm thinking the bad design is that the chest that can't be smashed open because it will cause the grenade to explode or something.

Like I said, I've never seen the check failing game ending boogeyman so I'm grasping at straws man.

Didn't we get an example of this in one of the 5e launch streams? Something like Acquisitions Incorporated?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

A regression from what?

 

[pemerton]

So your issue is that the GM can make decisions about the world the characters exist in? Describe the terrain they're passing through? Shocking.

No. My issue is that (i) it's utterly routine for the GM to make a decision to narrate/introduce some bit of fiction prompted by some at-the-table process (eg rolls that determine that an encounter occurs, that a PC is surprised, etc), but (ii) the example of (i) which is narrating a cook based on a failed check is being described by you and others as if it's some wild departure from typical RPG practices.

EDIT: Here's Exhibit A:

I don't agree with that premise. Why must the system tell me why the climb check failed for it to seem real(have verisimilitude)? If the DM narrates a rock bearing my weight crumbles and my PC falls, that makes it seem real.

Had the check to climb succeeded, the GM would never have narrated that crumbling rock.

In other words, the weight-bearing capacity of the rocks are being decided and narrated after the dice are rolled, in response to the outcome of the roll. The GM has not made a prior decision about which rocks can bear what amount of weight, such that that prior fiction can then factor into the resolution.

No one has explained, in a way that makes sense to me, why cooks and their location and disposition are different from rocks and their capacity to bear weight (or gelatinous cubes and the orientation hence visibility of the stuff that is "floating" inside them).

I think you are missing the point of why we're choosing this example. It's illustrating an extreme case to show that the principles behind the technique are not, in our opinion, sound. The GM is trying to create an illusion of verisimilitude--but they are doing so without relying on a fixed world backdrop. For me, once I realized this as a player nothing the GM can do can give me the feeling of verisimilitude, even if they are making sensical decisions all the time. It feels fake.

See immediately above.

 

[AlViking]

Didn't we get an example of this in one of the 5e launch streams? Something like Acquisitions Incorporated?

Not that I know of. Did it end the game or did they just miss out on some potential treasures? It could happen I suppose, I don't remember ever seeing it or having in happen in a game I've played. I would still wouldn't say it's an issue with the rules of the game.

 

[The Firebird]

No. My issue is that (i) it's utterly routine for the GM to make a decision to narrate/introduce some bit of fiction prompted by some at-the-table process (eg rolls that determine that an encounter occurs, that a PC is surprised, etc), but (ii) the example of (i) which is narrating a cook based on a failed check is being described by you and others as if it's some wild departure from typical RPG practices.

EDIT: Here's Exhibit A:
Had the check to climb succeeded, the GM would never have narrated that crumbling rock.

In other words, the weight-bearing capacity of the rocks are being decided and narrated after the dice are rolled, in response to the outcome of the roll. The GM has not made a prior decision about which rocks can bear what amount of weight, such that that prior fiction can then factor into the resolution.

No one has explained, in a way that makes sense to me, why cooks and their location and disposition are different from rocks and their capacity to bear weight (or gelatinous cubes and the orientation hence visibility of the stuff that is "floating" inside them).

Let's think through how the environment relates to DCs, yeah? When the GM sets a DC, that sets certain information about the fiction--its a DC 15, so there are some weak rocks. A good climber can avoid them. A poor climber doesn't.

Crucially, if a good climber makes it up, that does not subsequently change the nature of the cliff. The DC is still 15, and anyone climbing up after can stumble on the weak rock.

In contrast, if a good thief sneaks in, rolls well, and it turns out the cook is out of town, the nature of the scenario has changed. Previously there was a (quantum) cook to deal with. Now there is not. The fiction is modified by the skill check.

 

[AlViking]

No. My issue is that (i) it's utterly routine for the GM to make a decision to narrate/introduce some bit of fiction prompted by some at-the-table process (eg rolls that determine that an encounter occurs, that a PC is surprised, etc), but (ii) the example of (i) which is narrating a cook based on a failed check is being described by you and others as if it's some wild departure from typical RPG practices.

The GM is filling in details all the time, adding a ridge or other minor detail is nothing unusual. I might describe a beautiful sunset just to add flavor.

EDIT: Here's Exhibit A:
Had the check to climb succeeded, the GM would never have narrated that crumbling rock.

In other words, the weight-bearing capacity of the rocks are being decided and narrated after the dice are rolled, in response to the outcome of the roll. The GM has not made a prior decision about which rocks can bear what amount of weight, such that that prior fiction can then factor into the resolution.

Once again, adding flavorful fluff. The fall wasn't caused by the crumbling rock, the fall was caused by a failed athletics check. The crumbling rock was just adding flair.

No one has explained, in a way that makes sense to me, why cooks and their location and disposition are different from rocks and their capacity to bear weight (or gelatinous cubes and the orientation hence visibility of the stuff that is "floating" inside them).

See immediately above.

The above is just filling in a bit of color, making the world come alive and had no impact at all on the actual game state.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That makes no sense. A complication is a complication, even if someone fixes it quickly and easily because they are skilled. Something doesn't have to be unfixable or a huge setback in order to be a complication.

Absolutely not.

"There is an iceberg ahead" is only a complication if the person at the helm doesn't know how to pilot their ship. The iceberg simply is not a complication if you have a competent, observant pilot at the helm.

You are correct that physical things which could become complications, such as the iceberg itself, are there regardless IRL. But whether or not they actually DO become complications is a direct function of the skill of the person doing the task.

 

[Maxperson]

Absolutely not.

"There is an iceberg ahead" is only a complication if the person at the helm doesn't know how to pilot their ship. The iceberg simply is not a complication if you have a competent, observant pilot at the helm.

You are correct that physical things which could become complications, such as the iceberg itself, are there regardless IRL. But whether or not they actually DO become complications is a direct function of the skill of the person doing the task.

Very few complications are like that, but you are correct that skill can help avoid those few. Most complications happen despite skill.

 

[AlViking]

Absolutely not.

"There is an iceberg ahead" is only a complication if the person at the helm doesn't know how to pilot their ship. The iceberg simply is not a complication if you have a competent, observant pilot at the helm.

You are correct that physical things which could become complications, such as the iceberg itself, are there regardless IRL. But whether or not they actually DO become complications is a direct function of the skill of the person doing the task.

That's a negative outcome of a failed check which is different from fail forward where you succeed at what you were attempting but with a complication. If someone in my game fails to to notice the the trap, they'll likely set off the trap. That's far different from because you didn't open the lock a guard notices you.