NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9698251" data-attributes="member: 6785785">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification