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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6358592" data-attributes="member: 87792">And in practice old school D&D is arbitrary and makes no sense.  Right.  Now we've got the gratuitous mudslinging caused by misuse of techniques out of the way can we get back to the concepts please?As originally written wandering monsters did not carry loot.  And the goal was to avoid combat because it was lethal and the XP rewards for combat were minor compared to the XP rewards for loot.  2e vastly changed the nature of the game by dropping XP for GP from the default.  Fighting wandering monsters: All the risk, 20% of the XP reward, and doesn't get you deeper.  Wandering monsters were a problem.Apply also to your claims about Fail Forward.  And no it isn't where repeated skills are explicitly allowed.I do mean negative.  You're just beating up on a strawman here.Changing situations getting more dangerous should be interesting.Once more you are beating up on a strawman.  Getting messed up by failure is in line with failing forward.  Where Fail Forward kicks in is where there would be rolls without consequences.  That all depends on how interesting getting back out of the pit would be.  If you have to get out of the pit on the side you jumped from I agree with Umbran.  If the pit leads to a lair it's definitely failing forward.  If you can climb out of the far side of the pit the methods are different so it's failing forward.A lot of rulebooks are often laughable and mockable - especially when they have a sole author and are self published (as most Indy games are).  And for the record, Ron Edwards wasn't an 'everyone else is doing badwrongfun' snob.  Simply that some ways are bad ones.  Gamism wasn't his thing - but at a conceptual level he appreciated it.If you want to see Fail Forward in action done well, go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark.  In it Indy fails at just about everything he sets out to do just about every time he tries.  He just fails spectacularly and entertainingly and his attempts to cover the new unfolding situation drives things forward.  That is Fail Forward as it should be done.There is a reason I consider the 90s the nadir of good game design.</blockquote>

Verification