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

[Enrahim]

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.

As such, this boils down to the ages old words of wisdom: Never give the GM a good idea?

 

[AlViking]

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?

Allowing people to roll even though there's no chance at success has been a bit controversial in the past. It's something I do now and then because I don't want the player to know something is impossible when the character has no way of knowing it's impossible.

But like the DMG says, somethings just aren't going to work like hitting the moon with an arrow. So in those cases? Why waste game time on something that can't happen and the players should know that it can't happen? Sometimes this is as simple as a case of my not being clear enough on the description as a GM, sometimes it's just different expectations of the game and a player trying to push the boundaries of acceptable play.

 

[AlViking]

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

Which some people like and some people don't.

 

[Enrahim]

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

I think that is generally accepted by now. The argument is about how this technique fits badly if you have play with some different point. Which I also believe is quite generally accepted by now.

 

[Maxperson]

Sometimes even the greatest of skill can't overcome sheer bad luck, and bad luck gets lumped in as one more factor to consider for narration of the skill-check roll.

You could be an expert climber but by sheer bad luck your rope finds that one sharp bit of flint on the whole cliff face that you didn't realize was there, and gets frayed apart just when you need it most. Or you happen to put your entire weight on the only loose rock around, a rock that didn't seem loose when you tested it. Etc.

Most of the time - maybe even almost all the time - you'll get up that cliff no problem. But this time, your luck says 'no'.

Skill plays into those things. Bad luck might put the sharp edge and loose stone there, but proper skill will spot the edge and test the stone before putting too much weight on it. These are not just bad luck, but also mistakes made.

 

[Umbran]

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.

I would say that the social status of the domicile implies the presence of servants. Like the owner maintains the large building and does all the cooking themselves?

Also note the granularity difference between the cases:

To get parity between 1 and 2, my first case actually needs two action declarations - unlock door & sneakily enter building - call them actions 1 and 1a. That means more rolls, and more potential failures. So, when we look at the full intended result, we probably have the same number of potential problems.

 

[TwoSix]

I think that is generally accepted by now. The argument is about how this technique fits badly if you have play with some different point. Which I also believe is quite generally accepted by now.

Sure. I think we should all be able to understand which techniques work with which types of games (or player inclinations) after 18,000+ posts.

The real question is whether or not posters can properly caveat their posts to make it clear that they're talking about only a subset of games they're interested in, not all games in general. And have the discipline to do it in every post.

 

[The Firebird]

I would say that the social status of the domicile implies the presence of servants. Like the owner maintains the large building and does all the cooking themselves?

Also note the granularity difference between the cases:

To get parity between 1 and 2, my first case actually needs two action declarations - unlock door & sneakily enter building - call them actions 1 and 1a. That means more rolls, and more potential failures. So, when we look at the full intended result, we probably have the same number of potential problems.

Oh no. This point was also mentioned by @pemerton and @hawkeyefan a month or two ago. I won't type anything out again. Just a selection of what has been said

Respectfully, there have been maybe a dozen comments clarifying that the issue is not the cook's presence in the kitchen in the abstract but the cook specifically being there on a failed roll but not a successful one. If the cook is always present, fine. If the cook is in the next room and comes because of the failed check, fine.

But if the cook comes to check things out on a failure and does not exist on a success, not fine.

Ideally their notes would have spelled it out beforehand, saying something like:

Kitchen. Day: 2 cooks and 1 dishwasher. Night: 1-in-6 chance of cook preparing for next day.

If they decide in the moment to create a cook there, after the lock has been picked, I'd consider that a failure of GMing.

If the players decide to explore an estate they haven't planned for, and they say, hmm, I'll roll 2-in-6 for each room to see if it's occupied, that's fine.

If they say "I'll make this entrance the kitchen and have a cook there" prior to the players rolling, fine.

The important thing is that they do not create complications which are not directly related to the roll. Because in that case, the player's choice of approach becomes less meaningful as it is less effective at avoiding obstacles.

In the lock picking, fail forward case: success means you get in, no cook. Fail means you get in, cook.

What you're describing changes success to you get in, cook, but you also skillfully avoid the cook.

For me that would be ok because it doesn't make the cooks presence dependent on your lockpicking skill.

We discussed this already...it is better if there is an explicit connection between this and the result. For example, if the failed check causes noise and this attracts the cook, then that's an improvement. However, it doesn't address the core issue of the cook's existence being predicated on a failed lockpicking roll.


See, it is exactly what I see going on. To the players, it appears that their choices would have mattered--"oh no, there is a cook here, we should have gone in through the window". But if they went through the window then there wouldn't have been a cook in the kitchen. It appears the choice matters, but it doesn't.


So the players succeed on all of their checks--where is the cook?

Well, no. The key difference is that success has no cook and failure has a cook.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I would say that the social status of the domicile implies the presence of servants. Like the owner maintains the large building and does all the cooking themselves?

and some of us believe that those implied servants ought to exist in a more defined state than just being an in-potentia obstacle to be sprung on a player as a result of a failed check

Also note the granularity difference between the cases:

To get parity between 1 and 2, my first case actually needs two action declarations - unlock door & sneakily enter building - call them actions 1 and 1a. That means more rolls, and more potential failures. So, when we look at the full intended result, we probably have the same number of potential problems.

yeah, a lockpicking check and a stealth roll, but we wouldn't conflate those two into part of the same action resolution because they're different actions, and failed actions don't demand consequences for some of us beyond 'you don't succeed' so two rolls is less of a risk of creating problems.

 

[Enrahim]

Sure. I think we should all be able to understand which techniques work with which types of games (or player inclinations) after 18,000+ posts.

The real question is whether or not posters can properly caveat their posts to make it clear that they're talking about only a subset of games they're interested in, not all games in general. And have the discipline to do it in every post.

Are you sure the real question isn't at what point these caveats go without saying?