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

[Maxperson]

What was the change? What did the runes say before the check was made?

The quantum runes said nothing at all. A successful check and they said what the player hoped for. A failed check and the DM made up something different. Until the roll, though, they said nothing at all, so defining them changed their state.

 

[Lanefan]

5e does not have these. I wouldn't be surprised if such rules have not been included as part of the core rules since at least 3e, possibly earlier; I don't know 2e's mechanics all that well.

It's a while since I read the 5e DMG but I thought training-to-level was still in there as an option. I know it was in 3e. Can't remember for 4e, it's even longer since I read that one's DMG.

I guarantee you it simply would not be accepted by the playerbase at large to make spells random. It simply isn't going to happen.

There's many things the player-base have, no thanks to WotC, become conditioned to expect that don't make the game any better. Solution: change what they're conditioned to expect.

It's a long process, might as well start now.

To quote H.L. Menken, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” Of course, he was talking about explaining the source of "inspiration" (the essay it's from is titled The Divine Afflatus), but the point stands. Your explanation has all the wonderful qualities it needs except the most critical of them all: whether it would ever actually work in the real world.

The fact of the matter is, it simply won't. Players-in-general won't accept randomly-generated spell picks; I don't even believe GMs in general would accept such a path. I sincerely doubt either side would even accept GM-curated spell picks, but that one, I will admit, I am not 100% certain of.

I've had random spells since forever and haven't heard any complaints about it. Why? Almost certainly it's because of pre-set expectations.

Characters can try to seek out and buy spells in the setting (any given spell may or may not be available right here right now depending on a bunch of factors), but what they get during training and what they find in the field are almost always random.

 

[Maxperson]

There was no "hope check". There was a roll to read the runes.

This is a dodge. If the player didn't hope those runes said what he wanted them to say, he wouldn't have defined them that way for the check.

 

[Lanefan]

You have already expressly said that 1 is true: they simply cannot pick the lock, that is the one and only fact established by their attempt. You have already made clear that you don't allow for broader intents than that, so we are locked into 1 by definition.

And you are specifically--and repeatedly--saying that 2 is true.

Hence, by your own definitions, both of those conditions are met.

Failure does not merely maintain the status quo when other avenues of approach exist (I should have been clearer on that the first time round, sorry). What failure does do - and all it does - is shut down one avenue of approach.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's just as annoying to hear "This new stuff is so much better!" Repeatedly being told thatour games are exactly the same and ignoring how they're different.

Meanwhile we repeat over a over again that we just have different preferences. But y'all just continue arguing that we just don't get it. How many posters on your side of things ever acknowledged we just like different things unsteady of banging the drum on how awesome their game is? Because I can't remember a single one off the top of my head (admittedly it's been a long thread and I sometimes skim). Every trad player that i can think of has said its just a preference.

The problem isn’t that you have other preferences. That’s perfectly fine.

The problem isn’t that you talk about your preferences. That’s also perfectly fine.

The problem is when you talk about things you say you don’t like. Fail forward, narrativist games, and so on. Because when you do that, you continue to describe them poorly. It’s fine if you say “fail forward is not for me”. No one is trying to force you to use it.

But when you say “I don’t like fail forward because I don’t like the GM inflicting unconnected consequences on a failed roll”? That’s when you get pushback. Because you keep getting things wrong.

And here’s the other thing… I don’t think anyone has actually said “the games we like are better” or anything like that. Additionally… several posters actively play and/or run both trad and narrativist games. I am one of them. I wouldn’t classify one above the other… I enjoy each for different reasons.

If you don’t want people to disagree with you, then maybe stop trying to describe games that you don’t really understand. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Lanefan]

The quantum runes said nothing at all. A successful check and they said what the player hoped for. A failed check and the DM made up something different. Until the roll, though, they said nothing at all, so defining them changed their state.

Come on, Max - it's blatantly obvious what the runes said before the roll:

S - C - H - R - O - E - D - I - N - G - E - R

 

[hawkeyefan]

Failure does not merely maintain the status quo when other avenues of approach exist (I should have been clearer on that the first time round, sorry). What failure does do - and all it does - is shut down one avenue of approach.

In what context? Are you talking about how failure and consequences work in real life? Or are you describing how you prefer they work in an RPG?

Your statement is pretty absolute, so that’s why I ask. I know plenty of RPGs where what you’re saying is not true. And it’s clearly not true in real life.

So I’m hoping you’re just describing your preference for how it works in RPGs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Failure does not merely maintain the status quo when other avenues of approach exist (I should have been clearer on that the first time round, sorry). What failure does do - and all it does - is shut down one avenue of approach.

But it very much does preserve the status quo. "Nothing happens" IS preserving the status quo. That's what it means! "Status quo" literally means "the existing state or condition"; its most common formal use is in negotiation, where a return to "status quo ante" means that, after some kind of conflict or engagement, everything returns to the way it was before.

If, as you say, nothing happens, then the status quo is being preserved. "Nothing happens" means "the existing state or condition doesn't change".

 

[clearstream]

My point is simply that drawing lots, and winning is not the same as deciding. That's it. Do you disagree? Do you think that X drew the winning lot means that X decided to win?

Sure. Just as X decides what the prize is (the runes will be beneficial) is not the same as X drew the winning lot.

 

[clearstream]

Which reads quite plainly to me as a pretty passive player being corralled into doing something incredibly stupid, specifically because the GM stiffed them.

Weird reading. It was my example and my character was motivated to break into the townhouse come what may. I pictured that they needed something inside, urgently. The quiet way was ruled out so they went loud.

What would have stifled my character is if options that I also contemplated like climbing quietly to the roof and jimmying a window were taken off the table by GM inserting screaming cook.

I'm not playing this character to avoid danger, so I decided to escalate.