Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8648134" data-attributes="member: 42582">The text quoted from the PHB by [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] is, as I noted, the same in effect as that which I quoted from the Basic PDF.I quoted the processes. [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] quoted the processes. It is clear that, if those processes are applied, the presence or absence of the desired documents in the safe is determined by the GM's authorship of their notes, not as an outcome of a fortune resolution process.Related to that: the players can't, of their own accord, decide that what is at stake in searching a safe is whether or not their PCs will find the documents they are looking for. The GM has authority over that, following from the GM's authority over the content of their notes.Is the process that I quoted - which refers to the GM making maps and notes, establishing hazards and paths, etc, the one that you follow? Or not? From your posts to date I can't tell.A 2nd level spell slot is not a significant cost at many levels of play; the closet analogue in 4e D&D would be an encounter power. The complication seems to be relevant in some contexts but not others.I don't think the game is designed or balanced around 2nd level spells automatically resolving a situation in the players' favour. You are the first person I have ever encountered to suggest that sort of approach to 5e D&D.I don't really understand why you are answering my questions with questions.In Burning Wheel, or in Cortex+ Heroic, resolution of searching in the safe is conflict resolution: success finds the documents; failure is to be narrated by the GM in light of relevant considerations for framing and consequences.In Classic Traveller, the location of the safe would be Streetwise, which is conflict resolution (though as I noted upthread, there is no rule for how to narrate failure; I tend to follow AW norms). Actually opening the safe would be task resolution, but the prior Streetwise check would establish that it has the stuff in it.A 4e skill challenge would be similar to Classic Traveller: Streetwise (or History, etc) to find the relevant safe; Thievery (or an appropriate ritual) to open it.In Prince Valiant, the GM is assumed to have prepped this sort of material and so typically it would be task resolution. Though the most recent time something like this came up, the players conceived of the thing they wanted to find (it wasn't a safe, it was a spiritual anchor for an undead lord) and then spent a Storyteller Certificate to Find Something Hidden. I would say that this feature of Prince Valiant is consistent with its focus on situation rather than setting; in a sense it's "cheap" for the players to find whatever it is they want (the secret place, the secret information) because that won't be the answer to their problem, but rather just something that allows them to engage the situation in a new way.I don't have answers to your questions in the context of 5e play as I don't play 5e D&D. Hence why I asked you about your methods. I am not asking you to "explain away difficulties". I'm just asking you what your procedures of play are. In this thread, and others - indeed, in this very post - I've explained the procedures I use in various RPGs. Presumably it's possible to explain the procedures one uses to play 5e D&D.EDIT to respond to this further post:We reached this safe - how? Who decided it is part of the shared fiction? Using what principles? What is the framing?In Classic Traveller, for instance, the conflict resolution character of Streetwise checks means that it will be the safe with the documents in it. Are you saying that 5e works this way too?And who is the you in "you must decide on those consequences"? The GM? The players? Table consensus? Who has to tell whom? What principles govern all this?The answers to those in, say, Burning Wheel are clear: the GM chooses failure consequences, the player success consequences. The player has to be express about intent as well as task. The core rules say the GM has to be express about failure, but Luke Crane in his Adventure Burner commentary tells us that he often leaves the failure consequences implicit, and I take the same approach in my GMing. The player can follow whatever principles they like in setting their intent, but the game strongly incentivises engaging Beliefs. For the GM's part, the narration of failure consequences absolutely should engage Beliefs, reflecting but denying or twisting the player's intent.Are you saying that this is how you play 5e D&D? I'm assuming not, because of your posts upthread about following from what is established in the fiction. But as I said, I can't really tell.</blockquote>

Verification