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

[hawkeyefan]

Noise is not a result of failure to pick the lock.

Yes, it is. Let's say that this is my game and I'm running it and that's what I decide is the result of the failed roll. You can describe this as a Ruling Not a Rule or as homebrew or GM fiat or whatever you want to call it.

But this is indeed the consequence that I've decided in as a GM because it makes sense for the circumstances.

It exists if you are successful at picking the lock. It exists if you aren't even trying to pick the lock and just shove lockpicks around in the lock for a while having fun.

It is possible to be quiet when picking a lock, just as it is when using a key, or just turning the doorknob. These things make noise, but with care or caution, they can typically be done with less noise.

The only direct result of the attempt to pick the lock is success or failure to unlock it.

No, that's not true. If a tree branch falls and I am nearby and hear it, that's a direct result. It's not just the branch hitting the ground that's a direct result. There can be more than one.

Similarly, if there's a cook behind the door to hear the noise, she is there regardless of success or failure. After all, she's not quantum, right? She doesn't just pop in there on a failure and have her location fixed by the result of a die roll to pick a lock.

If as a GM I decide that the consequence of the failed roll is that the cook hears it, then yes, she was always there. Just like your farrier or your random encounter in the wilderness.

Further, the perception check is a step in the process, whether it's mechanical or not. On a success or failure, she may not notice the noise.

You are skipping steps.

Again, that's a mechanic. I'm not skipping steps if I decide that the failed roll means she heard the attempt. That's the consequence. Instead of "nothing happens" it's "you open the door to find that a cook has heard your lock picking".

Is it a deviation from the standard 5e process? You could argue that it is, sure. You could also argue that RAW (and you have in the past) that the GM can decide whatever they want; that they can bypass the rules when they want.

But even if we accept that it's a deviation from the standard process of 5e... yeah, no duh. That's the point of discussing different ways of doing things.

Possibly. Does Mothership tell the DM to be a neutral arbiter? Some RPGs want the DM to be a fan of the players, which is not being a neutral arbiter.

Yes, some games work one way and others work another way. You know where we find out how Mothership works? In the Mothership rule books. Not by implication from advice in another game that has nothing to do with Mothership.

You're conflating "saying" with "implying." I've been using the word implication for a reason.

Maybe infer would be better then? Because this is not the point of the advice.

5e says "discourage metagame thinking", right? So GURPS encourages metagame thinking?

It's not advice. The character's lives are already not boring, so it's as much advice as someone telling you to breathe so that you don't die. You're already breathing and aren't at risk of forgetting to breathe and suffocating.

The characters' lives are not anything without the players and GMs. Their lives are not "already interesting". They don't exist prior. It is up to the players and GM to make their lives interesting.

The actual advice is to make the results of failure interesting.

No, it's not. You're mixing this up with Fail Forward, but they are two different things. They often go hand in hand, but they are not the same.

It is telling you as a player to play aggressively... to push for what your character wants or feels is important. To drive the game. As a GM, it's saying to provide adversity to the characters, to make them struggle.

 

[The Firebird]

I get that mitigating risk was kind of baked into D&D early on… but not everyone wants a game that’s been boiled down to a list of best practices where everyone is walking around with 10 foot poles and performing door protocol every time they come to a door. That's not how actual people behave.

This is exactly how people would behave if put into dangerous scenarios. I always liked this quote:

“Having run a couple of schools where CQB was on the menu,” says Justin Dyal, a retired USMC lieutenant colonel, “I think doorway procedures kicked off more heated arguments among instructors than probably any other two topics combined.”

Now if you said "that's not what movies and TV depict", sure.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Pursuing the interesting ambitions we created for them before play.

Unless they're risky?

Yes, hence almost. Start looking for people doing things they should know runs counter to their overall valueset and goals, and you start seing them almost everywhere. (On the other hand it is indeed possible to rationalise almost anything. Spotting this notion in action isn't necessarily easy in a well crafted work of art. But it seem like I am sensitive)

But people do that in real life all the time. People make decisions that are not in their own interests. Very often, they may not realize that's what they're doing, or they haven't stopped to consider it, but other times, they know it going in. Sometimes they are literally told that something is bad or wrong and they do it anyway.

We all have done this at one point or another in our lives. Very likely, only with minor consequences... or perhaps we did something stupid and the bad thing that could have happened, didn't. But that doesn't change that people behave this way all the time.

I do not think this notion was around thousands of years ago. I think the pioneers of the artform made the art they did based on their own convictions of what would make good art, rather than some notion that it would be hard to make it without any flaws, so hence let us throw in some flaws to make good suff on easy mode.

No, I think the flaws of people have been foundational to fiction since its inception and will continue to be so. I think your analysis here is skewed in several ways.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is exactly how people would behave if put into dangerous scenarios. I always liked this quote:

“Having run a couple of schools where CQB was on the menu,” says Justin Dyal, a retired USMC lieutenant colonel, “I think doorway procedures kicked off more heated arguments among instructors than probably any other two topics combined.”

Now if you said "that's not what movies and TV depict", sure.

Sure, but this isn't something done at every door these guys may open. It also may not always be possible at all times, even in dangerous situations.

 

[The Firebird]

Sure, but this isn't something done at every door these guys may open. It also may not always be possible at all times, even in dangerous situations.

If you make the time meaningful you'll see the same. Maybe the PCs door procedure takes a turn and they get a random monster roll. So they can't use it while fleeing, and don't bother when there isn't a big risk.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you make the time meaningful you'll see the same. Maybe the PCs door procedure takes a turn and they get a random monster roll. So they can't use it while fleeing, and don't bother when there isn't a big risk.

What is this "turn" you speak of?

 

[Maxperson]

The sensible thing for Luke to do would not have been to listen to the old wizard and go off to try and save the princess. Instead, he should have turned the rogue droids in to the local imperial magistrate.

The more exciting thing would have been for Luke to just go into battle to fight for the Rebellion, but instead he did the sensible thing and went to Dagobah to get Jedi training, letting his friends face danger instead.

The sensible thing for Indiana Jones to do would be to safely sit in his classroom and teach archaeology and history and not go gallivanting across the globe getting involved with gangsters and Nazis and cultists.

The more exciting thing would have been for Indy to just use his whip or a sword to fight that massive swordsman, but instead he did the sensible thing and just pulled out a pistol and shot him.

I get that mitigating risk was kind of baked into D&D early on… but not everyone wants a game that’s been boiled down to a list of best practices where everyone is walking around with 10 foot poles and performing door protocol every time they come to a door. That's not how actual people behave.

Sometimes you do the dangerous thing. Sometimes you do the sensible thing. It shouldn't always be the dangerous and exciting thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The more exciting thing would have been for Luke to just go into battle to fight for the Rebellion, but instead he did the sensible thing and went to Dagobah to get Jedi training, letting his friends face danger instead.

The more exciting thing would have been for Indy to just use his whip or a sword to fight that massive swordsman, but instead he did the sensible thing and just pulled out a pistol and shot him.

Sometimes you do the dangerous thing. Sometimes you do the sensible thing. It shouldn't always be the dangerous and exciting thing.

It should be not boring, though. That's the idea.

But please... make the case for boring and then criticize us for saying your game's boring! That's fun!

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, it is. Let's say that this is my game and I'm running it and that's what I decide is the result of the failed roll. You can describe this as a Ruling Not a Rule or as homebrew or GM fiat or whatever you want to call it.

But this is indeed the consequence that I've decided in as a GM because it makes sense for the circumstances.

What's your rationale for successful lockpicking attempts making no noise? Because if both success and failure make noise, then noise isn't a result of the failed attempt.

It is possible to be quiet when picking a lock, just as it is when using a key, or just turning the doorknob. These things make noise, but with care or caution, they can typically be done with less noise.

If you cast a silence spell it is. If not, metal on metal and the clicking of the lock tumbles is going to happen no matter how good you are.

Also, the same caution happens on a failed attempt as with a successful one, so the noise will not be significantly more on a failed attempt. Since the same caution is happening, all that really should result is the failure to open the lock. The noise levels will be about the same for both success and failure.

No, that's not true. If a tree branch falls and I am nearby and hear it, that's a direct result. It's not just the branch hitting the ground that's a direct result. There can be more than one.

You picking up on the noise would not be a direct result of the fall, since if you weren't there it wouldn't happen. A direct result happens regardless.

The branch making noise would be a direct result, as that noise happens no matter what. You hearing that noise is a step removed since you may or may not be there, while the noise happens no matter what.

Another example. Fire burning you because you put your hand in it is a direct result. Fire causing your house to collapse is a direct result. You being hurt by that collapse is an indirect result of the fire. The fire only directly affected the house.

Again, that's a mechanic. I'm not skipping steps if I decide that the failed roll means she heard the attempt. That's the consequence. Instead of "nothing happens" it's "you open the door to find that a cook has heard your lock picking".

The mechanic represents a step.

Yes, some games work one way and others work another way. You know where we find out how Mothership works? In the Mothership rule books. Not by implication from advice in another game that has nothing to do with Mothership.

Like fluff and lore needing to match in the game, the rule names and what the rules actually do should actually match. When they are completely different, it's, well, dumb.

The name of the mechanic is stealth in 5e for when you are sneaking, not hamburger. If they named it hamburger, it would be dumb.

5e says "discourage metagame thinking", right? So GURPS encourages metagame thinking?

Maybe. Some games do. Some games don't.

The characters' lives are not anything without the players and GMs. Their lives are not "already interesting". They don't exist prior. It is up to the players and GM to make their lives interesting.

Yes they are. By virtue of playing the game, those characters' lives are interesting. Nothing further need be done, especially through a rule with a name that has nothing to do with the advice it gives

 

[Maxperson]

It should be not boring, though. That's the idea.

It isn't. Luke's life was exciting, even though he went to get training, which from the look on Luke's face, was often boring.

But please... make the case for boring and then criticize us for saying your game's boring! That's fun!

First you make the case for why I should respond to this strawman. Not one person has argued that games should be boring.