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

[hawkeyefan]

That's just it - the cook should not be in any way related to the lock picking!

Should not be related in what way?

The cook is a potential observer to the lock picking attempt.

You're the one who keeps trying to tie these two independent things together and some of us just ain't gonna buy it no matter what sales technique you try.

They are not independent. You may prefer to handle them with independent rolls in play… that’s a way to do it and is perfectly fine. But that doesn’t mean they are independent. Nor does it mean they must be handled by separate rolls.

If there's people there to startle, sure. But if it's previously undetermined or not noted whether there's people there or not then it really does seem like the failed break-in attempt is causing those people to appear where they otherwise would not.

To whom?

The way you do it, at least one of my four lock-cook outcomes becomes impossible: I can't narrate a cook being present if the lock attempt is successful.

Why not? Just narrate that the cook is in the kitchen, her back to the door as she hums to herself and chops vegetables, unaware of the thief.

LOL. The last time I just checked and the last time I used the term unconnected was nearly a month ago. So who is continuing to bang that drum?

You. This is you, yesterday:

There's a difference between resolving uncertainty with the roll of a dice than causing something unrelated to happen because of a failure.

Technically you’re right. You didn’t use the word unconnected. Instead you used unrelated.

 

[AlViking]

Should not be related in what way?

The cook is a potential observer to the lock picking attempt.

If the cook is observing the lock picking attempt does she only scream because the idiot should have been easily able to pick the lock? Whereas if the attempt had been successful she just would have nodded her head and said "That's the way it's done" and gone back to bed?

They are not independent. You may prefer to handle them with independent rolls in play… that’s a way to do it and is perfectly fine. But that doesn’t mean they are independent. Nor does it mean they must be handled by separate rolls.



To whom?



Why not? Just narrate that the cook is in the kitchen, her back to the door as she hums to herself and chops vegetables, unaware of the thief.



You. This is you, yesterday:


Technically you’re right. You didn’t use the word unconnected. Instead you used unrelated.

So until I agree with you 100% you're going to keep banging the one true way drum?

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the cook is observing the lock picking attempt does she only scream because the idiot should have been easily able to pick the lock? Whereas if the attempt had been successful she just would have nodded her head and said "That's the way it's done" and gone back to bed?

If this is how you would do it, then sure... go ahead. It seems nonsensical to me, so I'd handle it how I've already described many times.

If the roll failed then enough noise was made by the thief that the cook heard the lock picking. She is alerted. She probably turns, her brow furrowed, to look at the door. Then the thief opens the door, unaware that he's drawn her attention. The cook sees him... and then we'd see what happened next. How does the thief deal with this situation?

I don't know why you'd ever choose to handle it in the silly way you described when it takes minimal effort on the part of the GM to actually make a sensible scenario.

So until I agree with you 100% you're going to keep banging the one true way drum?

No, not at all. I'm not saying there is only one way to do this. Your way is perfectly fine. It's just when you describe other peoples' methods and do so poorly that I respond.

You’ll notice that I’m not describing your method much at all, and certainly not in as unflattering terms as I can possibly imagine. Which is what you’re doing.

If you said “This is not for me” and left it at that, we’d not be going back and forth. If you said “I prefer to handle each task as its own roll” we’d not he going back and forth. It’s because you say “I don’t like it because the results are unconnected/unrelated to the task” that we continue going back and forth because, as has been shown, that’s simply wrong.

 

[Faolyn]

The PC/player distinction I brought up earlier. If the player is clearly different than the PC because the player is exercising control over the fiction in a way the PC couldn't, then it feels less immersive.

It's personal perspective. If I'm helping create the world it takes me out of immersing myself in my character's personality. I don't consider exploring and discovering the world an "infodump" either unless the GM gets carried away with description. I haven't had anyone do that for a long time.

I have literally never experienced that at all, and I can't understand why it would feel less immersive. Does it feel less immersive when you don't use other out-of-character knowledge? Like, one of our GMs was running us through Icewind Dale, and all of us-as-PCs were "Drizzt who?" even though of course we-as-players knew who he was. If you were in that situation, would that have felt less immersive, because the player is different than the PC at that time?

And people in general tend feel more connected to things that they create or helped create. Ask anyone who created something--anything. Why does it feel different to you when it's in an RPG?

 

[AlViking]

If this is how you would do it, then sure... go ahead. It seems nonsensical to me, so I'd handle it how I've already described many times.

If the roll failed then enough noise was made by the thief that the cook heard the lock picking. She is alerted. She probably turns, her brow furrowed, to look at the door. Then the thief opens the door, unaware that he's drawn her attention. The cook sees him... and then we'd see what happened next. How does the thief deal with this situation?

I don't know why you'd ever choose to handle it in the silly way you described when it takes minimal effort on the part of the GM to actually make a sensible scenario.

I wouldn't use it at all. Either the cook is there or they aren't, it has nothing to do with the lockpick attempt. Obviously if the character wasn't trying to pick the lock the cook wouldn't have noticed them in the first place, but it doesn't matter if the attempt succeeds or fails.

No, not at all. I'm not saying there is only one way to do this. Your way is perfectly fine. It's just when you describe other peoples' methods and do so poorly that I respond.

You’ll notice that I’m not describing your method much at all, and certainly not in as unflattering terms as I can possibly imagine. Which is what you’re doing.

If you said “This is not for me” and left it at that, we’d not be going back and forth. If you said “I prefer to handle each task as its own roll” we’d not he going back and forth. It’s because you say “I don’t like it because the results are unconnected/unrelated to the task” that we continue going back and forth because, as has been shown, that’s simply wrong.

If you have a better example please provide it. The only example you made was a roll to see how long it takes to climb a cliff. That, to me, does not fit other descriptions of fail forward that I've seen as I stated long ago.

How many times do I need to repeat that it's just a preference? That I prefer to handle each task as it's own roll? I'm assuming it's well over a hundred by now.

 

[AlViking]

I have literally never experienced that at all, and I can't understand why it would feel less immersive. Does it feel less immersive when you don't use other out-of-character knowledge? Like, one of our GMs was running us through Icewind Dale, and all of us-as-PCs were "Drizzt who?" even though of course we-as-players knew who he was. If you were in that situation, would that have felt less immersive, because the player is different than the PC at that time?

And people in general tend feel more connected to things that they create or helped create. Ask anyone who created something--anything. Why does it feel different to you when it's in an RPG?

Can you accept that other people have a different experiences, preferences and point of view than you do? Maybe you feel more connected to things they create or help create, I don't. Not sure what else to say other than people are different.

 

[The Firebird]

I have literally never experienced that at all, and I can't understand why it would feel less immersive. Does it feel less immersive when you don't use other out-of-character knowledge? Like, one of our GMs was running us through Icewind Dale, and all of us-as-PCs were "Drizzt who?" even though of course we-as-players knew who he was. If you were in that situation, would that have felt less immersive, because the player is different than the PC at that time?

And people in general tend feel more connected to things that they create or helped create. Ask anyone who created something--anything. Why does it feel different to you when it's in an RPG?

It's ok if you don't have this experience. Some of us do. Some of us don't.

That scenario doesn't go particularly far. But I would prefer the GM not use established characters in that way because it doesn't demand the same PC/player separation.

I, of course, have created things...as I'm sure everyone else here has. So that explanation isn't enough. And as a player we are creating a PC and acting as them. The point is that if our authority goes far beyond the PC, then it no longer feels like we are acting as the PC, but as a player observing the PC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why not use a term that's accurate like, "Make the moment interesting" since it's all about what's happening in that moment and has nothing to do with rescuing the characters from a life of boredom?

Because when they came up with the idea they picked a phrase that made sense to them and weren’t worried about pedants discussing it online years later?

I wouldn't use it at all. Either the cook is there or they aren't, it has nothing to do with the lockpick attempt. Obviously if the character wasn't trying to pick the lock the cook wouldn't have noticed them in the first place, but it doesn't matter if the attempt succeeds or fails.

But we’re showing an alternate way of handling it where it does matter if the attempt succeeds or fails.

If you have a better example please provide it. The only example you made was a roll to see how long it takes to climb a cliff. That, to me, does not fit other descriptions of fail forward that I've seen as I stated long ago.

That’s the most recent example I have from running 5e. The roll to climb the cliff was failed. However, I determined that it didn’t mean the cliff wasn’t climbed, but rather that it took longer than they hoped and led to consequences down the line.

I don’t really see how it’s different.

How many times do I need to repeat that it's just a preference? That I prefer to handle each task as it's own roll? I'm assuming it's well over a hundred by now.

You don’t need to repeat it.

What I suggest you stop doing is describing the way others do it. Stick to what you do and not how you think others do it.

 

[Maxperson]

You. This is you, yesterday:


Technically you’re right. You didn’t use the word unconnected. Instead you used unrelated.

Sure, but to be fair, he's said more than once that when he says that he's talking about directly connected/related. If I decide I want ice cream, get in my car, drive to the store, go into the store, buy some ice cream, leave the store, drive home, scoop out some ice cream, put the rest of the ice cream into my freezer, walk outside with the bowl, and drop a little bit on the ground, and ants come to eat the ice cream, yes the ants eating the ice cream is connected to the decision that I wanted ice cream. It's not directly connected/related though.

 

[AlViking]

Because when they came up with the idea they picked a phrase that made sense to them and weren’t worried about pedants discussing it online years later?



But we’re showing an alternate way of handling it where it does matter if the attempt succeeds or fails.



That’s the most recent example I have from running 5e. The roll to climb the cliff was failed. However, I determined that it didn’t mean the cliff wasn’t climbed, but rather that it took longer than they hoped and led to consequences down the line.

I don’t really see how it’s different.



You don’t need to repeat it.

What I suggest you stop doing is describing the way others do it. Stick to what you do and not how you think others do it.

You're showing an alternative you like. I'm perfectly fine with that. I do not like the process as described and have explained why I do not. I view the GM deciding that an attempt will always succeed and the roll is just to see how long it will take as a different situation. I've given how if the initial attempt to open a lock fails by 10 or less, the character try again but it will take significant longer many times.

If you have a better example than failing a lockpick attempt or a cliff you've decided can automatically climbed where the roll only determines how long the climb will take let me know.