Taking it all back

[Ravingdork]

The following is hypothetical for the purposes of promoting discussion on the topic of "rewinding time and decisions to benefit players" and the potential pros and cons of doing so.

A character jumped across a chasm, relying on their savior spike to get across. Sadly, the player rolled a natural 1 resulting in a critical failure. The savior spike turns it into a normal failure and my character falls to their death as the party watches on in horror.

A not-insignificant time later (but before the next scene in the story), it is revealed that one of the other player characters had feather fall spell prepared all along and, had the player not forgotten about it, the character could (and arguably would/should) have used it to save the falling PC.

However, when the players approach the GM about it, the GM takes a firm "no take backs" stance.

Does the GM's stance enhance the game's sense of gritty thrill, as the spellcaster must now wrestle with the notion that they could have done more for their friend in a moment of panic? Does it better encourage players to not be lackadaisical, and better know and understand their character's abilities? Or does it merely serve to make heroes come off as bumbling idiots and generate feelings of ill-will at the table?

Would it make a difference if the loss of the character was a significant hindrance to the contuity of the game session? What if a death was not a significant hindrance, but the party having to take the time to fish a living character out of the chasm would be?

What ramifications might the GM's decision have for future games? What if they had ruled differently?

What if a player hadn't forgotten one ability, but rather that the entire table collectively failed to realize a mistake in the math until later, and that the savior spike should have saved the character? What if it was some other mistake made by the GM that lead to the character's death? How might that change the situation?

Please, discuss your thoughts and feelings on the matter.

[Salamileg]

People forget things all the time. If I can forget where my toothbrush is when it's in my mouth, I think it's reasonable that an adventurer forgets they have a spell in a tense moment.

I've also looked back on ways that I could have prevented my character dying if I had remembered something, but ultimately that's just part of the game. In general as a GM I only allow actions to be taken back until a roll has been made. Once a d20 hits the table, the course of events is set in stone.

EDIT: In regards to rules misinterpretations, I still don't allow take backs, but would encourage making reviving the character a bit easier than it normally would be. I had a PC die in Plaguestone because we misunderstood the hero point rules, so I had someone come by some weeks later who would revive her for free if they did something for him.

[Ravingdork]

Salamileg wrote:

In general as a GM I only allow actions to be taken back until a roll has been made. Once a d20 hits the table, the course of events is set in stone.

What about in cases such as the above, in which a reaction is performed AFTER the dice roll?

[Salamileg]

Ravingdork wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

In general as a GM I only allow actions to be taken back until a roll has been made. Once a d20 hits the table, the course of events is set in stone.

What about in cases such as the above, in which a reaction is performed AFTER the dice roll?

In the case of feather fall, it triggers off a falling creature, and they don't start falling until after they've failed a roll. So that follows my rule. But if it's gotten to the point where they've fallen to the bottom of the pit and have failed all their recovery checks, yeah, that's a bit too late for me.

[Deriven Firelion]

I allow takebacks. I liked it less when I was younger and had that whole, "The burnt hand teaches best" mentality. Now that I've been playing a long time and my group is older and more bogged down with real life and age, I don't mind takebacks.

The game is about having fun, cooperative storytelling or whatever you get out of it playing with other folks. If someone remembers later on they had something to save another player's character that they want to keep playing, then I use my god-like DM powers to adjust the world accordingly.

I would have no problem allowing a takeback.

[breithauptclan]

I'm willing to rewind time and retcon things, but only up to a certain point. While we are playing out the scene, we often have people remembering things that they have available shortly after they would be needed. Looking through their character sheets frantically trying to find something to avoid disaster while I am trying to also keep the game going so that the players don't get bored.

But once the outcome has been decided on and the game has progressed - and especially once other decisions of players have been made based on that outcome - then it is too late. Spells and items were forgotten about in the stress of the moment, even the math doesn't get recalculated.

So once the players have started planning how they are going to recover their ally's body from the bottom of the chasm and get back to town to have them resurrected, it is too late to retcon casting of Feather Fall or recalculate the skill check with the benefit of Guidance.

[keftiu]

I think the answer to this (like many things!) relies on having a good session 0 to establish expectations and table culture. If your group is playing in the retro-inspired adversarial mode, where things are tough and death lurks around the corner? No takebacks. If you’re just playing for fun or a good story? There’s really no reason not to.

Given that Hero Points exist, the system itself leans towards the latter, but I really do think the answer here is “have clear shared expectations for difficulty and loss.”

[Cydeth]

I'm in the same boat as breithauptclan. I'm willing to pause things as we're determining the result to let people pore over their sheets to see if they have a way to reverse it. As a GM I'll even remind players of options they may have. All of that being said, once the result has been decided on and we've moved on (generally from the room where it occurred), what's happened, happened.

Which isn't to say things haven't been rewound in my games before. In a Kingmaker game I was running, the players had terrible luck, all but one of the characters died, and the last character fell to their death due to a sabotaged handhold while fleeing. Since it was a TPK, I considered, then went with the whole 'it was all a dream', since the players were okay with it. They took it as a prophetic dream from the gods, and decided to explore elsewhere and come back to the location in question later.

[thenobledrake]

People forget things all the time (especially me), so I am lenient in making alterations to accommodate suddenly remembered details.

There is a line though. That line is a nebulous thing in theory, though in practice it seems easy enough to find; when adjusting for a remembered detail, whether it is beneficial or not, feels like it wasted everyone's time we don't do it.

So little things that just change maybe an action or two worth of what has already happened get re-done without hesitation, and anything that would re-write or necessitate a re-do of minutes worth of stuff gets a similarly unhesitating "no."

[Norade]

Unless they recall it immediately after the roll is failed and consequences are known, the mistake stays in. As GM I might offer them an easier than usual time of recovering the body and ensure they find a quest that would reward the party with a chance to revive their fallen friend but take-backs, no matter the reason, cheapen the game.

[Perpdepog]

I tend to tailor that kind of thing to the people I'm gaming with. I know some folks who enjoy the really hardcore style of play, and for them I wouldn't do a takeback since that's not what they'd want, and they also likely came into the game with a stable of backup characters, just in case.

Most people I game with though prefer their game a little bit looser, or for their difficulty to come from aspects other than having to remember their character sheet. For those people I generally ask how they feel about the decision being reversed before going forward. They may still want to play someone different, after all, but generally it's just a goof, and at the end of the day we're at the table to have fun, so I allow the takeback.

I've found that those errors aren't even usually motivated by a player's desire to avoid negative consequences for their character--a player will happily have their character die if it is at a dramatic, impactful moment--but more about their feeling of agency in that moment. I'm more likely to have someone ask about using a suddenly remembered resource if it is fixing something relying on dumb chance than because the party miscalculated the difficulty of a challenge, for example. In the latter case they usually grit their teeth and either muscle through or retreat with their wounds incurred.

[Mathmuse]

Player character death is a lot of work for me as a GM. I have to adjust the upcoming encounters for a smaller party and I feel like a bad host as the player is left out of the action. We either have to recover the body and plot a trip to a temple for a Raise Dead or arranged for a newly-rolled character to join the party.

On the other hand, I am not going to fudge the risk of jumping over a canyon except in the approved fudge method called Hero Points. The game needs true risks, not just the illusion of risk.

Thus, I follow breithauptclan and Cydeth in pausing the game and asking, "Is there any way we can save your fallen comrade? Let's check our character sheets." I said "our" because sometimes an NPC has the solution. (Once in a PF1 game an assassin was trying to kill the party and just before she finished her 3 turns of studying the magus for a Death Attack, the magus retreated from battle and renewed his Mirror Image spell. The assassin switched to the NPC bloodrager and finished the Death Attack. And in looking over the bloodrager's character sheet, I spotted Uncanny Dodge which rendered her immune to the Death Attack. One NPC had outsmarted another NPC without the GM noticing at first.)

Ravingdork's GM had not paused the game, so the GM missed a great opportunity for one player to call out, "I can save him!" Teamwork is exciting, more exciting than the "gritty thrill" that Ravingdork guesses the GM wants.

I chalk this one up to GM inexperience. Players need to cooperate and that requires time to think and compare notes. Characters are too complicated to remember every detail without checking the character sheet. The ramifications for the future is that the GM should learn how to pause the game.

I ordinarily don't let players take back risky actions after a bad die roll, because the die roll was the risk. But this was not the jump nor the natural 1 being taken back. The mistake (rather than the risk) was a player forgetting something that their character should have remembered. The mistake can be corrected. And "before the next scene" means that no other risks would be undone and no advance knowledge was given out.

[Temperans]

I tend to give players 1 or 2 chances to fix mistakes no more than 1 round after it took place. 1st time I warn then about what might happen if they do something. 2nd time I question their choice, "are you sure".

After those two chances if they keep making mistake it's on them for not paying attention to the game. So if they die they die, I don't fudge rolls since I roll dice openly; Although I'm thinking of starting to roll some secret rolls for things like enemy stealth.

[Norade]

It's funny how different approaches can be. I will give my groups every chance to solve the issue before it kills them; generally speaking, I do this by dropping fairly large hints and asking leading questions. However, I won't give a pause for players to check every option on a character sheet and I won't allow do-overs unless I messed up and killed them with an egregious rules blunder or wildly unfair encounter (with no reasonable way out), and then it becomes a group discussion of how we want to handle things.

[Kasoh]

If the table is still silent, looking at the fallen pawn on the table wracking their brains about how much that sucked and someone remembers that they can featherfall the PC, sure.

If the party has already moved onto the next room, no.

The only time that's come close to this for me was in a Wrath of the Righteous game where a PC was going to be Snicker-Snacked by a Balor's Vorpal Blade and after a minute of the affected PC looking to see if he had a mythic cheat death power and didn't, another PC said, "Oh, yeah I still have Divine Intervention from Iomedae, I can use that now."

[Deriven Firelion]

I do take backs because I like to run the game very fast and fluid. I don't want to give the players too much time to think about combat. I want it to feel fast and dangerous. So I prefer to take back something than to slow down combat during the battle.

It's a rare enough occurrence it is pretty easy to do.

[Exocist]

I’m with Deriven - I don’t want people taking minutes pouring over their potential options every time something happens just to see if they had the perfect answer then. And that’s, in my opinion, what GM behaviour such as “no takebacks” or frequent gotcha moments such as (passed sense motive) “you think (NPC) entirely believes what they are saying” when really they were deliberately using double meaning statements or purposefully omitting certain things. Players will just start bogging down table time with frequent lookups, checks and rechecks. We’re here to play a game and have fun, not spend 2 hours looking at sheets of paper.

[Ravingdork]

Exocist wrote:

I’m with Deriven - I don’t want people taking minutes pouring over their potential options every time something happens just to see if they had the perfect answer then. And that’s, in my opinion, what GM behaviour such as “no takebacks” or frequent gotcha moments such as (passed sense motive) “you think (NPC) entirely believes what they are saying” when really they were deliberately using double meaning statements or purposefully omitting certain things. Players will just start bogging down table time with frequent lookups, checks and rechecks. We’re here to play a game and have fun, not spend 2 hours looking at sheets of paper.

I've gotten into trouble for doing exactly that as a player; bogging down the game looking for that one silver bullet that could save my character from an untimely fate.

I've got something of a burgeoning reputation for it in fact. (That's not a good thing.)

[Ascalaphus]

When you take a hardline no takebacks stance, what are you trying to prove, to who, and why? Is it something that makes the game actually more fun (in which case, do it) or is it some ingrained stock phrase from when you were a kid?

Me I'm with what sounds like the main crowd here - okay with a bit of rewind if we haven't moved on too far yet, especially if it's a severe thing. But I don't want a game bogged down by people constantly remembering things after the fact, so for minor mistakes on either PC or NPC side that happened a few rounds ago, those aren't worth reversing.

[Malk_Content]

My hard-line no comes from experience. It may increase enjoyment for that individual moment, but it permanently damages the feel.of the game in my experience.

It's a line that, when crossed means that every consequence is arbitrary. It is no longer the result of choices in the moment and the ebb and flow of the dice but the choice of whether to let the former stand or not.

Much like I think fudging ever is a bad thing. Once you've decided you done like the results of the game once, the results of the game are forever less meaningful because they could be broken again.

Also it slows games down when allowed, and slowness is bad.

[Ravingdork]

Those are some very strong points, Malk_Content.

[Mathmuse]

Malk_Content wrote:

My hard-line no comes from experience. It may increase enjoyment for that individual moment, but it permanently damages the feel.of the game in my experience.

It's a line that, when crossed means that every consequence is arbitrary. It is no longer the result of choices in the moment and the ebb and flow of the dice but the choice of whether to let the former stand or not.

Much like I think fudging ever is a bad thing. Once you've decided you done like the results of the game once, the results of the game are forever less meaningful because they could be broken again.

Also it slows games down when allowed, and slowness is bad.

Most game consequences are arbitrary. When the party charges an enemy wizard and her minions, which spell does the wizard cast? Who is the target? If the rogue in the party tried to pickpocket a noble on the street and failed the Thievery checks, how does the noble react to the failed attempt to rob him? The Steal action says, "The GM determines the response of any creature that notices your theft." Even falling into a chasm could be arbitrary; for example, could the falling PC Grab an Edge halfway down as the chasm narrows? That is a GM decision about the shape of the chasm.

In Ravingdork's example, a player remembering that their character had prepared feather fall was arbitrary, too. I asked one of my players about pausing the game, and he reminded me that he has Attention Deficit Disorder and cannot remember all the details on his character sheet. (I often forget because he is the smartest person in the house.)

As for slowing the game, I have another player who takes a minute to think on her turn regardless of how simple the combat is. Thus, my game is already slow.

Furthermore, I have two new players. They do not know all the rules. In fact, one reason I read these Paizo forums regularly is to read about obscure rules that I myself had overlooked. Talking over an action can uncover options that one person might not have known. Permitting ignorance of the rules to set the game events in concrete is more arbitrary than letting people talk.

Finally, my wife is a tactical mastermind. Each encounter can get uniquely unconventional. Just two months ago, my players set a Dig-Widget to dig a tunnel into a slave compound in an enemy fort. I had to make a ton of arbitrary decisions about how long the digging would take, how stealthy the digging would be, how well did they have to hide the tunnel entrance and the dirt pile, what is the skill check for digging the tunnel accurately to the root cellar, etc.? Since the digging took a week, forcing the players to invent solutions in minutes would be unrealistic. Aiming for the root cellar was a last-minute decision, because I had not mentioned the root cellar beforehand. My wife had asked, "You said the villagers in the compound would have breakfast in a house designated the cookhouse. Does that house have a basement?"

In summary, we play a highly complex game with inexperienced and disabled players. Hard lines don't mix well with complexity and accommodations. The feel of the game that I aim for is letting the players roleplay for fun rather than as a contest of wits.

[Henro]

It depends a lot on the situation. I'll generally allow a takeback, and will give my players information or context in advance of certain actions if I think their characters would be aware of some critical piece of information that they missed. A chasm may look fairly safe in a player's mind, but the PC can see it and knows just how deadly a fall would be.

However, at some point an action has happened, and choices are made as a result of that action. At that point it's too late for rollbacks - not because of realism or grit but because the choices and actions subsequent to the rollback are valuable too.

[Squiggit]

Malk_Content wrote:

It's a line that, when crossed means that every consequence is arbitrary. It is no longer the result of choices in the moment and the ebb and flow of the dice but the choice of whether to let the former stand or not.

No more arbitrary than saying "Whoops I made a mistake your character's dead oh well"

[Malk_Content]

Squiggit wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

It's a line that, when crossed means that every consequence is arbitrary. It is no longer the result of choices in the moment and the ebb and flow of the dice but the choice of whether to let the former stand or not.

No more arbitrary than saying "Whoops I made a mistake your character's dead oh well"

I wouldn't call a genuine mistake arbitrary. Things happen in times of stress, both at the table and narratively. Now I'd the player knew they could save someone and decided not to I'd say that's arbitrary.

I think players draw the line somewhere. I'm not "your hand touched the chess peice so you have to use that one" but I am, "no I've started to reach for my piece you can't take back your move."

In general I feel commitment to what happened and reasonable constraints on timings (I would loosen my own table rules if playing with Mathmuses group for examplel improve role-playing. Having to think fast and not always be fully optimal allows for quicker, dirtier combats from both sides of the table and then leaves great space for the characters to talk when time allows.

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

With respect to your initial query Ravingdork, player death is the one and only time that I allow take-backs.

My players don’t die often, but when they do, we normally stop the game and go over character sheets, prior turns, double-check math, etc. After that, well, we all agree on a final ruling (dead).

Kinda like how the NFL automatically reviews all plays in the end zone.

[Dork Smurf]

Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:

With respect to your initial query Ravingdork, player death is the one and only time that I allow take-backs.

My players don’t die often, but when they do, we normally stop the game and go over character sheets, prior turns, double-check math, etc. After that, well, we all agree on a final ruling (dead).

Kinda like how the NFL automatically reviews all plays in the end zone.

What? Why!? Call an ambulance for smurf's sake!

How could someone be so heartless as to talk about character sheets, rules, and math while their fellow player lay dying in front of them!?

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

Ravingdork wrote:

Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:

With respect to your initial query Ravingdork, player death is the one and only time that I allow take-backs.

My players don’t die often, but when they do, we normally stop the game and go over character sheets, prior turns, double-check math, etc. After that, well, we all agree on a final ruling (dead).

Kinda like how the NFL automatically reviews all plays in the end zone.

What? Why!? Call an ambulance!

How could someone be so heartless as to talk about character sheets, rules, and math while their fellow player lay dying in front of them!?

ROFL - that took me a second, but still hilarious!

[StarlingSweeter]

I do a mix of take-backs and consequences. In this scenario for example I would allow the players to “turn back time” and cast feather fall. However, since the PC hesitated, possibly rushing the incantation. The falling PC would still take some damage and break an arm or a leg as their descend slows.

This way the falling PC still lives and my players dont need to feel guilty. But the consequences of their actions would still be apparent and they would need to adjust their current adventuring plans to care for the injured player over downtime. (Or press forward with the injured PC having only 1 arm to use during combat).

[voideternal]

At my table, it depends on:
- the severity of the loss - If a PC would die / lose a very significant portion of character power / health / resource enough to risk death, I tend to allow it.
- how far back the take-back is - If it's a very recent take-back, such as within the same turn and die-rolls haven't happened, I tend to allow it.
- how inconsequential the take-back is - If it's something minor that doesn't alter the overall flow of battle and that doesn't take time, such as retroactively applying persistent damage + the d20 flat check to recover from it when it's remembered, then I tend to allow it.
- how strongly the player cares - If I sense that a player might feel cheated and upset about a past decision, I tend to allow it.

Some examples of take-backs I don't allow are:
- tactical decisions that were consciously made but later regretted.
- forgetting to apply / use an ability at a significant time later (1 round+ in encounter mode, roughly 10+ in-game minutes in other modes) then when it was needed.
And even then I sometimes offer to allow such take-backs with a hero point.

I want my players to feel safe that they aren't playing a game of forgetful gotchas, and when their character does go down / die, I want it to feel fair.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

For me it depends on circumstance and how much has to be rolled back.

If it is remembered out of seasion it is a no chance situation, if it is remembered in the same turn then I am usually fine.

It also depends on the tone of the game and what we agreed it would be prior to starting the campaign.

[TwilightKnight]

I take a fairly rigid position on take-backs which is similar to the NFL. Once the next play(er) has started, it is what it is. Usually, it is something like "oh, I forgot to add the inspire courage damage" or "I forgot to take that free five-foot step." Sorry, we all forget things, the GM included. In fact, I probably forget to do more things than my players do, but I don't roll-back time.

Occasionally, I might "correct" by adjusting a future event. Like, the player forgot to add a bonus to their attack that would have made their action last round hit, so I just let them hit this time.

I am not a fan of metagaming and I find that a lot of take-backs are because of it. A player moves to a particular place on the map and suddenly someone says, "don't go there, I was going to go there." Sorry, they took their action. You should have said something prior. For the most part, talking is free and can be done off your turn. Also, it is important that it has to be communicated in some way so the bad guys might hear it too. I do not "hive mind" my monsters, so you don't get to hive mind your characters.

I don't treat a character death any different than a non-character death. At least in 2E, there are so many ways not to die that by the time we get to that point, the player has thoroughly reviewed their records for anything that could have been used to prevent it. Not to mention I don't "kill" PCs immediately upon Dying 4. I treat it like running out of cards in most TCGs. When they reach Dying 4, the next time their turns comes around, essentially when they are required to "draw their three action cards" is when they die. This gives them that one last 'gasp' before they die. If by that time they have not figured it out, it is what it is. YMMV

[MaxAstro]

I wish I could upvote Mathmuse's posts several times each.

It does, however, very much depend on the game you are running and the players you have and what is fun for everyone. Which, as usual, means that communication is the biggest thing - before the fact, not after the fact.

For an example, I am running Fist of the Ruby Phoenix right now, and because I want a high-octane anime feel, I have told my players that their characters cannot die unless they the player choose for their character to die in a scene. No matter how bad things get, their character will always manage to hold on to life with sheer determination until their wounds can be treated; they may be out of the rest of the session, but they won't be dead.

On the other end of the scale, I also recently ran Malevolence. And for that adventure I told my players before hand that I would not be pulling any punches. Hero Points could not be used to prevent death (and in fact would not be handed out for free at the start of the session), I would not be allowing any take-backs or second chances, and I would happily kill a PC if I saw the opportunity.

My players all survived Malevolence - barely - and they loved the feeling of cheating death with their lives on the line. But they also love being silly and over-the-top and taking hilarious risks for Rule of Cool in Fist of the Ruby Phoenix.

So I think the key is, whatever approach you are going to take, make sure your players know about it before hand and everyone agrees that is the game they want to play.

[Kennethray]

I agree with the whole, allow take backs only if the event was very recent, rounds to minutes. To be fair though, the person who forgot they had feather fall is less likely to forget it next time (or atleast actually check if they could save the pc right when they die) if there are actual consequences.

Twilight knight made a point that struck home with me. I forget things for the creatures they are fighting all the time. I hold the same standards for myself. It is very unlikely that a dragon wouldn't know when its breath weapon has recharged but it has happened. Even cool abilities I reminded myself to use the round before.

The ways that i handle this issue is established and consistent, and everyone still enjoys the games and comes back time after time. I guess that's all that matters.

[Uhtred von Mauer]

It depends with me as a GM. What is the playing experience/ ability of the PCs, is the PC new to the game> How consequential is the decision, and can it be used as a teaching moment?

My experienced players, I do not cut as much slack, but if they come to the table and I know this is their break from a stressful day/week/month I but everything environmentally into context.

[Amaya/Polaris]

Salamileg wrote:

People forget things all the time. If I can forget where my toothbrush is when it's in my mouth, I think it's reasonable that an adventurer forgets they have a spell in a tense moment.

I've never seen or read a story where forgetting one's abilities at a crucial moment was a dramatic point. Not even "a good story", just any story. I imagine it would be terribly unsatisfying and not feel like it makes any sense, though.

[Malk_Content]

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

People forget things all the time. If I can forget where my toothbrush is when it's in my mouth, I think it's reasonable that an adventurer forgets they have a spell in a tense moment.

I've never seen or read a story where forgetting one's abilities at a crucial moment was a dramatic point. Not even "a good story", just any story. I imagine it would be terribly unsatisfying and not feel like it makes any sense, though.

I have read/watched plenty of stories were characters seize up in the moment, don't act and something terrible happens because of it. Actually a pretty vommon trope I think.

[nick1wasd]

I like to use the 'HowToBeABetterGM' "friendly game" rule. If you pass your turn, and then immediately say "WAIT! I have this class feature/effect! I do this instead/the number was actually this value!" before the next person goes, that happens. I've had a few boss monsters spontaneously kick it because the rogue forgot sneak attack until the next player is about to make an attack roll and the extra ~5 damage is the rest of it's HP. And/or if it's exploration mode, I allow a 2 minute real life window of recalculation/decision rolling back. Now, if someone opens the door and there's giant stompy monster behind said door, I don't allow that to get CTRL-Z'd unless they have something that lets them do it in a way that doesn't let them get noticed (like xray vision or lube for the hinge). I also have 3 new players, so they get a little more leeway than the other, more veteran players at the table.

[Ravingdork]

nick1wasd wrote:

Now, if someone opens the door and there's giant stompy monster behind said door, I don't allow that to get CTRL-Z'd unless they have something that lets them do it in a way that doesn't let them get noticed (like xray vision or lube for the hinge).

Yeah, obtaining new in-game knowledge as a result of one's decisions and that impacts meta decisions, is not something that I'm going to allow a "reverse course" on.

[Kasoh]

nick1wasd wrote:

Now, if someone opens the door and there's giant stompy monster behind said door, I don't allow that to get CTRL-Z'd unless they have something that lets them do it in a way that doesn't let them get noticed (like xray vision or lube for the hinge).

It is surprising how common "...and I close the door." is said at my table.

I mean, good effort, but still.

[Eoran]

Kasoh wrote:

nick1wasd wrote:

Now, if someone opens the door and there's giant stompy monster behind said door, I don't allow that to get CTRL-Z'd unless they have something that lets them do it in a way that doesn't let them get noticed (like xray vision or lube for the hinge).

It is surprising how common "...and I close the door." is said at my table.

I mean, good effort, but still.

I feel I should mention that familiars can get tremorsense.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Kasoh wrote:

It is surprising how common "...and I close the door." is said at my table.

And this is why I love that perception is the goto intiative most of the time. To execute this manoeuvre you generally need to beat the initiative of everything on the other side of the door :)

[Ched Greyfell]

Our GM always ruled if you remembered a bonus you forgot to add, or something similar, he'd let it go as long as it was the same round. But once it gets to your turn again, it's done. And he'd only get strict if people were constantly forgetting things. Continually chiming in, "Oh. Would 27 have hit? I forgot the bard's performance bonus," for the 4th round in a row. When he kept having to rewind and say you hit after all, he'd say no.
Also, for things involving information you didn't have (or understand) but your character would. Like if you announce, "I walk past Kozeg and go across the room," before he had the chance to read the full description of the open pit in the room.

[yarrchives]

Ched Greyfell wrote:

Our GM always ruled if you remembered a bonus you forgot to add, or something similar, he'd let it go as long as it was the same round. But once it gets to your turn again, it's done. And he'd only get strict if people were constantly forgetting things. Continually chiming in, "Oh. Would 27 have hit? I forgot the bard's performance bonus," for the 4th round in a row. When he kept having to rewind and say you hit after all, he'd say no.

Same for us for the most part. As long as it's understandable to forget something in a hectic round or two, our GM is reasonably lenient. As players, we're also receptive to our GM having to retroactively fix something in his end so it fairly goes both ways.