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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8440934" data-attributes="member: 42582">But can you assure me that no immersion was harmed in the administration of your Doom Pool?EDIT: This is part of why I think the needle hasn't moved very much. I think what you propose would be treated as outrageous by the vast bulk of D&D fandom. And responding to your earlier reply, I don't even think it's "stealth" coopting. It's keeping some labels but overtly changing th technique.Eg "fail forward" was coined to describe BW-style resolution of failure: the action is declared by the player with both intent and task, the check fails, and the GM narrates a consequence which may or may not involve the task succeeding, but which - crucially - both (i) runs contrary to the intent, and (ii) generates new pressure for the player in terms of the broader goal/motivation from which the action's intent flowed. In other words, BW "fail forward" is shaped by player-established intention and motivaiton.Whereas when I see "fail forward" mentioned in relation to 5e D&D, it is mostly in a 3-clue rule style: the player declares a task, and if the check fails, the GM has regard to the GM's intentions for how things should unfold in narrating the consequence of failure, which may or may not include the task succeeding at least in part, but includes non-naturalistically extrapolated content whose function is to ensure the GM's goals for the broader scene and scenario are not undone.That's not stealth!</blockquote>

Verification