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

[Maxperson]

If you were more skilled, you would have picked that lock a lot sooner

Not by RAW. By RAW you can do it in one action, which is 6 seconds. It takes that 6 seconds skilled, less skilled, or non-skilled.

before the cook made his way to the kitchen.

Unlike the sharp edge which is there with a success or failure, the cook is not. The cook is a different scenario where the cook has nothing directly to do with the roll.

If you were more skilled on the attempt, you'd have not made so much noise while lock-picking thereby attracting the attention of the perceptive cook.

Again, the noise for success is greater than that of failure, since the guy picking the lock can't control the tumblers clicking into place or the lock snapping open. A perceptive cook is more likely to hear a success than a failure.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, to me it is. Just because something isn't remembered doesn't mean it never happened.

I disagree. There are several embarrassing events of my youngers years that never happened.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Not by RAW. By RAW you can do it in one action, which is 6 seconds. It takes that 6 seconds skilled, less skilled, or non-skilled.

Besides the RAW being terrible IMO, I think you're forgetting that the entire debate was centered around a Fail Forward.
Are you saying a GM couldn't rule that you struggled with the lock and it took longer than RAW, and likely longer?

I recall @AlViking and I were providing time loss as a possible consequence of failures in that discussion.

Again, the noise for success is greater than that of failure, since the guy picking the lock can't control the tumblers clicking into place or the lock snapping open. A perceptive cook is more likely to hear a success than a failure.

The Fail Forward example used was on a Fail you have Success with the lock-pick + consequence (perceptive Cook)

 

[AlViking]

Besides the RAW being terrible IMO, I think you're forgetting that the entire debate was centered around a Fail Forward.
Are you saying a GM couldn't rule that you struggled with the lock and it took longer than RAW, and likely longer?

I recall @AlViking and I were providing time loss as a possible consequence of failures in that discussion.

The Fail Forward example used was on a Fail you have Success with the lock-pick + consequence (perceptive Cook)

My version is a house rule and a completely separate declaration than the initial attempt. If the initial attempt fails by less than 10, they can try again. They've proven they're skilled enough that there is no chance of failure so they can continue to try and eventually they'll succeed. It's basically what they talk about in the DMG under Ability Checks - Trying Again.

But the initial attempt? That took an action. The result of the failure? The door remained locked.

 

[Umbran]

bad luck is fine for climbing, bad luck is fine for lockpicking too, however, the existence of a cook is not a consequence of bad luck in the act of lockpicking, it is just a generalized 'bad thing' that you don't want to happen.

So...
Imagine two action declarations:

1) I want to quietly pick the lock, by using my lockpicks.
2) I want to enter the kitchen unnoticed, by quietly picking the lock.

Absent a specific rules system, both of these are cogent enough action declarations. Both have goal and approach, understandable cause and effect.

The cook is said to be nonsensical for the first declaration. But it isn't for the second.

But also, technically, the first doesn't actually get you in the kitchen. It gets you an unlocked door. It must be followed by opening the door to get in the building.

To get parity for the two cases, ewe need to include the step of entering the kitchen to the first case. At which point, we'd say that the cook is a rational "bad luck" result on entering, instead of lockpicking.

 

[Maxperson]

See, to me the only functional difference between the first bolded piece and the second is that the second only came true after a successful die roll.

The player could have used, in character, the first wording to the same effect. In character as Aloysius: "Gee, I sure wish these runes were a map showing the way out. Hey, maybe that's exactly what they are!" should be enough to prompt such a roll, hm?

What I want to know is what happens if a PC has been told that there are runes of importance to him in the ruined castle, but he keeps failing the rolls. Do more and more runes keep showing up until he eventually succeeds and finds the ones that say what he hopes they will say?

 

[Maxperson]

Besides the RAW being terrible IMO, I think you're forgetting that the entire debate was centered around a Fail Forward.
Are you saying a GM couldn't rule that you struggled with the lock and it took longer than RAW, and likely longer?

I recall @AlViking and I were providing time loss as a possible consequence of failures in that discussion.

The Fail Forward example used was on a Fail you have Success with the lock-pick + consequence (perceptive Cook)

The DM can of course alter rules. I'm just pointing out how in the first example, fail forward is running in conflict with other rules. And in the second example I'm pointing out that the fail forward choice makes little sense, since the cook isn't perceptive if the noise is louder, but only when it makes less noise on the failure.

 

[The Firebird]

So...
Imagine two action declarations:

1) I want to quietly pick the lock, by using my lockpicks.
2) I want to enter the kitchen unnoticed, by quietly picking the lock.

Absent a specific rules system, both of these are cogent enough action declarations. Both have goal and approach, understandable cause and effect.

The cook is said to be nonsensical for the first declaration. But it isn't for the second.

But also, technically, the first doesn't actually get you in the kitchen. It gets you an unlocked door. It must be followed by opening the door to get in the building.

To get parity for the two cases, ewe need to include the step of entering the kitchen to the first case. At which point, we'd say that the cook is a rational "bad luck" result on entering, instead of lockpicking.

Has the cook's existence been established prior to the roll for case (2)? If not, I find it nonsensical.

In the worst case, this kind of play can manifest as the player's action declaration leading to more consequences. What I mean is: if the player had declared (1), the complication may have been a loss of time. If they declare (2), it prompts the GM to think "I wonder if anyone is in the house" and settle on cook.

The player's declaration leads to more problems for them.

 

[Umbran]

So if the bard tries to seduce a dragon, the GM should always allow it?

So, there are two different things that could happen here.

1) Disallowing the action -the PC cannot even attempt it.
2) Allowing the PC to attempt the action, but noting that the DC (or mechanical equvalent) is so high that the PC cannot succeed.

Note that the resulting narrative is different between these. One has no attempt made, the other has an attempt that fails. That means the resulting fictional position is different.

In what cases should the GM choose 1 instead of 2?

 

[TwoSix]

Has the cook's existence been established prior to the roll for case (2)? If not, I find it nonsensical.

In the worst case, this kind of play can manifest as the player's action declaration leading to more consequences. What I mean is: if the player had declared (1), the complication may have been a loss of time. If they declare (2), it prompts the GM to think "I wonder if anyone is in the house" and settle on cook.

The player's declaration leads to more problems for them.

But in lots of games using fail-forward, generating consequences (problems) is the point of play.