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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8505445" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, if there are no stakes, then the outcomes are functionally, at least in terms of game's agenda, equivalent. That would be my definition of 'inconsequential'. My personal answer to this is simply free narration. The player narrates what his character does. He's free to explain the outcomes based on his abilities and whatnot. I'd stipulate that players are obliged to stick to 'appropriate fiction' (IE no describing your plate armor-equipped tank of a paladin sneaking around in his armor). Again, I actually coded this into my game's design! 5e can do it, but it is far from clear that this is how the rules are intended to read, assuming there even IS an intent.IMHO TBH I think 5e is extremely classic here, it expects the GM to call for roles based on the actual physical consequences of hazardous or uncertain moves, and not having any relation to any larger fiction. The 'only interesting failure' rule is then relegated to being merely an admonition not to bother to roll dice when the outcome doesn't change the fiction in any way. The GM is simply EXPECTED to supply danger! That is, putting a locked door in the PC's way and then not defining a consequence for taking an hour to pick the lock is either A) a case where no roll should be asked for, or B) a failure to GM well. Again, in my own game the player would simply describe picking the lock in an amount of time which seems plausible and inconsequential, or else the picking will be a consequential part of a challenge, pure and simple. I'd note that 4e is more of a 'mixed bag' in that it allows for 'free checks' which work a lot like 5e, and have all the same issues. Obviously when in this mode of play it is on the GM to make things matter.</blockquote>

Verification