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

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

Is it reasonable for a dragon to be at all interested in a humanoid bard?

If a dragon and a donkey can fall in love... then I don't see why not.

 

[Umbran]

As I just said, it's a common meme. But if I'm not using some random determination then it's even more up to the GM, group expectations and genre.

Well, the point i was leading to is that the question is really only moot in a game like D&D as written, that only has simple success/fail mechanics.

In games with other mechanics, the failed attempt can have other impacts, so the choice of whether to allow the attempt can matter.

Like, in a fail-forward game, a last ditch effort to seduce the dragon, even if doomed to failure, may give you a way forward without getting eaten...

 

[Umbran]

This was also discussed a month ago:

Wait a sec. When you were GMing before, and a player tried to do something, you didn't know what success would look like?

 

[Faolyn]

This was also discussed a month ago:

I know, which is why I wonder why it's still being talked about now.

As I'm pretty sure I said back then, this is all stuff you would also be thinking about in a trad game where you write the adventure ahead of time. Maybe not what would happen on a failed lockpick, but you'd probably think something along the lines of, there are guards in areas 2 and 8, and they would be able to hear things that go on in the areas surrounding 2 and 8. And since Stealth and Lockpicking are disconnected in your game, when they fail on a Stealth check in area 3, which is connected to area 2, the guards there would hear them.

You always know what's going to happen on a success or failure because you, the GM, decided it ahead of time when you plotted out the adventure instead of right there at the table. You know that a failed Stealth check in area 3 will bring the guards from area 2 because you've said the guards in area 2 can hear what's going on in area 3. It literally doesn't matter if the only thing that happens is "you unlock the door" and "you don't unlock the door." You've decided that. There's absolutely no GM-facing illusion in a trad game. Not unless every single thing in the game is determined randomly on table, probably one that someone other than you wrote. (And to me, that sounds like a terrible game to play or run. At that point, you might as well just be a player yourself and get an AI GM.)

Secondly, as as I may have said before, you were, quite frankly, running BitD wrong. You don't have someone roll to pick a lock. You find out what their goal is and they roll to see how well or how poorly they achieve that goal. Here's this example from the book: “You’re punching him in the face, right? Okay... what do want to get out of this? Do you want to take him out, or just rough him up so he’ll do what you want?” The GM is asking what the end results will be: unconsciousness/death or intimidation? Thus, what's actually rolled will change depending on what the goal is. The PCs want to get in cleanly? That's probably Prowl. They cleanly picked the lock and got in. If the lock itself is important--maybe it's the only thing between the PCs and the ruby that they broke in for--then you'd have them roll Tinker to pick it. Unless they don't care about leaving things neat and want to break the safe's door, in which case they'd roll Wreck.

So this

ok, what will a success look like? I guess they get in clean. What about fail forward? Hmm, we've established that this is an estate, and the lord will want to eat breakfast early, so maybe the cook is getting in to start working on that. That's nice, it follows from the fiction.

Is incorrect. This is addressed in full in the "GM Bad Habits" section of the book.

The first thing you'd do is ask the player what they want to do. You don't guess they want to get in clean.

Secondly, you don't worry about what will happen on a success or failure until it happens, and there the dice will tell you. Was it a Controlled situation but their highest die was a 4? 4/5: You hesitate. Withdraw and try a different approach, or else do it with a minor consequence: a minor complication occurs, you have reduced effect, you suffer lesser harm, you end up in a risky position.

That's when you might introduce a cook, but because it's a minor complication or risky position, they're not going to do something major like scream and call all the guards. But even there, there are other options. Minor complication: The lockpick is jammed in the lock; it will be obvious that someone tried to enter it. Or, it took a really long time; your window of opportunity is rapidly closing. And so on.

But most importantly, The players and GM narrate the action together. So you don't have to worry about coming up with stuff as they roll because the game says that you and the players come up with it afterwards.

In the book's example, if the PC wanted to knock the guy unconscious and rolled badly, then together, you might decide that the guy is still conscious and mocks the PC for their little girly punch--or maybe the PC accidentally killed him since, y'know, rendering someone unconscious via a blow to the head is actually really dangerous.

 

[The Firebird]

Wait a sec. When you were GMing before, and a player tried to do something, you didn't know what success would look like?

The opposite. I did know what success would look like, and it contradicted certain details of what failure would have entailed, like the presence of the cook. I knew the cook would not be present on success but would be on failure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

IMO 2) should always be available.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If a player wants their PC to try something with no chance of success, honestly I say let them. Clearly the attempt is important to them, and there's no in-fiction reason they can't try.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Not easy, but important I agree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

So long as people still get sore about them not being said, they apparently need to be said.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not our game, though. If you guys are having a great time with cooks who hear less noise and fail to hear more noise, you're doing it right for your group. Enjoyment is the number one goal of playing RPGs.

That’s some sweet passive aggression.