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

[Gimby]

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.

It's been a while, but I think it was the party was stuck outside a secret door and the adventure couldn't continue till they found it, so everyone was standing around awkwardly till someone rolled high enough to find it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's been a while, but I think it was the party was stuck outside a secret door and the adventure couldn't continue till they found it, so everyone was standing around awkwardly till someone rolled high enough to find it.

I know some people were complaining about being stuck with a secret door in Rime if the Frostmaiden. They were really stuck behind missing the point, the adventure was a sandbox, there was no requirement for them to get past the door. Some things the party just fails at and goes on to do something else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it’s a chateau (French for castle) I would assume that if it was understaffed that would be noted in the overall description.

While that is the original meaning of the term, most buildings called "châteaux" in French today are not castles, and are instead manor houses or palaces. Versailles, for example, is a "château" but definitely isn't a castle, it's a palace. (It was called a "château" in its time because, when it was built, it was a country estate. The city has expanded around it.) Some places are called a "château" not because of any house per se, but because they're wine-growers, hence why there are a number of French wines that are named "Château <Name>"; this is apparently especially common in the Bordeaux region.

Per Wikipedia, "The French word château denotes buildings as diverse as a medieval fortress, a Renaissance palace and a fine 19th-century country house. Care should therefore be taken when translating the French word château into English, noting the nature of the building in question. Most French châteaux are 'palaces' or fine 'country houses' rather than 'castles', and for these, the word 'château' is appropriate in English."

In modern French, if one wishes to refer to the kind of thing that English means by the word "castle", the correct term usually involves the French word fort somewhere, sometimes (not always) paired with château, e.g. "Château fort de Roquetaillade."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Indeed, what would be surprising is if they weren’t there. Unless, of course, the players decided to do something sensible and break in at night.

Even at night--depending on the exact hour--a cook could still be around, preparing things for the next day, closing up, possibly using the kitchen facilities for their own use (which, AIUI, was not uncommon as a privilege for servants in well-to-do homes of yesteryear). For a particularly persnickety or often late-working lordship or ladyship, they might even have the cooks genuinely living on the premises so they could request fresh food at all hours.

All of which leaves out a wide variety of plausible contexts why a cook, or some other servant, might be nearby at any given hour. "The Master's big dinner is tomorrow!" (Perhaps the PCs already know this, that's why they're stealing whatever they're looking for now instead of waiting.) "Run meself ragged, I do, but a bit o'work now'll save three hours in the morning!" All sorts of things, and just the barest hint of effort at any point for hours ahead of this moment could establish a dozen different avenues that would all be plausible and furthering a grounded and self-consistent depiction.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Even at night--depending on the exact hour--a cook could still be around, preparing things for the next day, closing up, possibly using the kitchen facilities for their own use (which, AIUI, was not uncommon as a privilege for servants in well-to-do homes of yesteryear). For a particularly persnickety or often late-working lordship or ladyship, they might even have the cooks genuinely living on the premises so they could request fresh food at all hours.

All of which leaves out a wide variety of plausible contexts why a cook, or some other servant, might be nearby at any given hour. "The Master's big dinner is tomorrow!" (Perhaps the PCs already know this, that's why they're stealing whatever they're looking for now instead of waiting.) "Run meself ragged, I do, but a bit o'work now'll save three hours in the morning!" All sorts of things, and just the barest hint of effort at any point for hours ahead of this moment could establish a dozen different avenues that would all be plausible and furthering a grounded and self-consistent depiction.

Possibly, if I was running the adventure, I would know where the staff where (I generally move tokens around on a VTT GM layer for mobile NPCs) the actions of the players cannot teleport them to a different location.

 

[Enrahim]

No.

What I'm saying is, in both cases, you are inventing a new fact about the world that wasn't present before. Just in one of them, you're (foolishly) making that fact be something vast and transformative, while in the other, it is narrowly-tailored and relevant.

But both things involve doing what you said was expressly forbidden. You're still inventing crumbly handholds. One is just--for some ridiculous "reason"--saying "oh actually that wall I said was solid WAS ENTIRELY CRUMBLY".

The line in the sand you claim to never cross is being crossed in both cases. You're just doing it to only the relevant pieces, not in a massively stupid and egregious way.

Because--if I were a betting man, though I am not--I would bet good money that at least nine times out of ten, when faced with a situation like this? You'd never even mention crumbly anything if the player succeeded. It's only mentioned if they fail. Meaning, you still invented it either way in response to failure in almost every instance. Failure is still what causes the world-description to now include crumbly handholds. Just as failure on a surprise check is what causes the world-description that you were looking the wrong way, or distracted, or daydreaming, or whatever else.

The existence of a problematic aspect of the wall was established when the need for a roll and the DC was determined. At this point everyone know there is potential for failure, and everyone can make up in their mind how such a failure could look like. If this is important to the players they can enquire about the exact nature of the failure state in advance in order to establish this into shared fiction.*

After the failure is a fact, this hence do not alter the state of the wall. But it might make it more interesting to ask what caused the fall. This is when the details of the fiction needs to be established, but the method of establishing it should be the exact same as if the question had been asked before the roll. That is the established fiction should be consistent with the DC set, and not in any way take into account the knowledge that a check was failed.

Edit: * two reasons for not establishing the exact nature of the failure state at this point: First it is sort of a waste of time and breath, as most players in my experience don't care before failure. But the other and in my mind more important is that by leaving blanks, that leaves more room for the players to color in details resonating with them personally - hence producing a more vivid experience for them as long as you provide enough tone for them to become inspired.

 

[Enrahim]

It's been a while, but I think it was the party was stuck outside a secret door and the adventure couldn't continue till they found it, so everyone was standing around awkwardly till someone rolled high enough to find it.

Was the codeword "Mellon" by chance?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The existence of a problematic aspect of the wall was established when the need for a roll and the DC was determined. At this point everyone know there is potential for failure, and everyone can make up in their mind how such a failure could look like. If this is important to the players they can enquire about the exact nature of the failure state in advance in order to establish this into shared fiction.*

After the failure is a fact, this hence do not alter the state of the wall. But it might make it more interesting to ask what caused the fall. This is when the details of the fiction needs to be established, but the method of establishing it should be the exact same as if the question had been asked before the roll. That is the established fiction should be consistent with the DC set, and not in any way take into account the knowledge that a check was failed.

Edit: * two reasons for not establishing the exact nature of the failure state at this point: First it is sort of a waste of time and breath, as most players in my experience don't care before failure. But the other and in my mind more important is that by leaving blanks, that leaves more room for the players to color in details resonating with them personally - hence producing a more vivid experience for them as long as you provide enough tone for them to become inspired.

So...

It's okay to leave important elements of the world undefined until after a roll is made when doing so is convenient?

But it's not okay to leave important elements of the world undefined until after a roll is made when...you dislike how it sounds when spelled out?

Because that's the difference I'm getting from this and it's not exactly the most compelling argument. Kind of the diametric opposite of compelling.

 

[AlViking]

<I asked about examples of fail forward>

...

I ran a 5e game this weekend. The PCs had to climb a cliff to reach their goal. A ritual was being performed in that location, one which they hoped to stop.

One of the PCs failed his climb check. I didn’t narrate that he fell or was stuck halfway up or that he needed to make a saving throw or a new climb check or anything like that.

I ruled that the climb took longer than they hoped and so the ritual was further along toward completion.

To me that's a partial success, which is different from fail forward. The preexisting clock did not change, the preexisting event did not change, no trolls suddenly appeared to harass him. This is not, to me, an example of fail forward or success with complication because you added no new complication that did not already exist in the fiction. Taking longer to climb is a diegetic penalty for failing the athletics check.

You didn't add anything new to the fiction of the world because of the failure.

<failing an athletics check described as crumbling rock>

...

What cause the fall in the fiction? The character wouldn’t say “I failed my athletics check”. There would be a reason of some sort.

The reason they failed was because their check was under the DC for the climb. We're talking about a game, here what else do you need? Do you have to provide a reason why every attack misses it's target?

 

[clearstream]

So...

It's okay to leave important elements of the world undefined until after a roll is made when doing so is convenient?

But it's not okay to leave important elements of the world undefined until after a roll is made when...you dislike how it sounds when spelled out?

Because that's the difference I'm getting from this and it's not exactly the most compelling argument. Kind of the diametric opposite of compelling.

It could be connected with my proposal that some modes of play require imagined world to be addressed as if it were real. That's eased if someone has the job of establishing facts about that world independent of the PCs.