The Dumbing Down of RPGs

[ExploderWizard]

Keep in mind that it also means that "I miss... next" never happens. That's the main thing that keeps success at a cost from being fail forward.

For example, in D&D if try to shoot someone and miss, it means you tried to hit but nothing came of it.

In FATE if you try to shoot someone and miss, you can turn that into a hit at some kind of cost. (success at a cost)

In Dungeon World if you try to shoot someone it isn't a binary hit/miss dilemma. (fail forward)

Either

• You hit and dealt damage.
• You hit and dealt damage, but you moved into a dangerous position, you dealt -1d6 damage, or you took several shots and have less ammo
• Something bad happens, and the DM makes a Hard Move against you. You might have hit or not depending on the situation.

So, fail forward tries to remove the concept of two outcomes one of which is "you failed... next" from the game entirely.

What this says to me is that the mechanics of the game aren't there to resolve action, they ARE the game.

It is a classic example of what is occurring in the setting serving the rules, which is backwards. What happens in the game world is largely a result of players interacting with the rules structure instead of the setting.

 

[ThirdWizard]

What this says to me is that the mechanics of the game aren't there to resolve action, they ARE the game.

It is a classic example of what is occurring in the setting serving the rules, which is backwards. What happens in the game world is largely a result of players interacting with the rules structure instead of the setting.

You absolutely couldn't be more wrong, and you really shouldn't try to analyze an entire RPG without actually reading the rules. Actually, you shouldn't try to analyze an entire RPG system without playing the game, but asking that would probably be asking too much.

EDIT: If you're at DragonCon, hit me up and we'll pay some DW.

 

[Celebrim]

You absolutely couldn't be more wrong

Really? Because not only have you told me I'm wrong, and then proceeded to provide a definition I've used multiple times in the thread, and then tried to provide an even narrower definition of 'fail forward' than the one that is generally used which amounts to "Fail forward is the way I do it in Dungeon World, and not the way it is done in other games (or even necessarily the way it is done in the examples in DW's own rules)", but you've managed to contradict yourself several times in the last few posts.

Let me start with your failure to understand my analysis of fail forward:

The concept of fail forward isn't "the PCs move forward even if they fail." Fail forward is "things continue to happen even if the PCs fail a roll." Oftentimes those things moving forward are bad for the PCs, but good for gameplay.

Yes. That's EXACTLY what I said repeatedly during this thread. However, I slightly change the perspective on what that means and the emphasis of what 'forward' means. If 'forward' means 'this happen that are bad for the PCs, but good for gameplay', I'm focusing on the fact that 'good for gameplay' tends to functionally mean 'good for the players' in the sense that it tends to be less threatening to their goals of play than actual failure by itself would be. And focusing on the single throw resolution of that as you are doing misses that point entirely, because most systems apply 'fail forward' not at the single throw level by at the scene level. And really, its when you start looking at how DW advices you to use 'fail foward' at the scene level that your whole denouncement of everyone else's understanding really blows up in your face.

To evade that, you start offering definitions of 'fail forward' that are so narrow that they don't meet the definitions of fail forward provided typically in RPGs (or even, IMO, in DW), or else you are offering contradictory statements. If fail forward only meant that a bad thing happens on failure, that is to say, if it only meant that the positive stake on the successful fortune outcome was balanced by a negative stake on the failed fortune outcome, then we could step back from the larger system and notice that things like AD&D saving throws, or remove trap rolls, often effectively were 'fail forward'. The positive stake was, "You can claim the foozle." The negative stake was, "You take serious injury or even die." So clearly this definition is too narrow and frankly too ineffectual to describe a unique mechanic.

But even worse, consider the following:

"There are mechanics in some games where on a failure a PC can take a penalty to turn it into a "success, but..." However, those are "success at a cost", and are not considered "fail forward" rules."

First of all, I never even gave treatment to fail forward as a player driven option at any point. I never once mentioned games were players can set their own stakes and thus are involved in not just propositions but determining resolutions. But had I done so I certainly wouldn't have considered this to differ from "fail forward" on those grounds alone, as the definition of "fail forward" doesn't depend on who is setting the stakes. Nor for that matter does the fact that a particular game doesn't make fail forward mandatory at all times actually mean that the game doesn't use fail forward at all and allows you to exclude them from your analysis of fail forward. Nor for that matter is "success, but..." actually contradictory to fail forward as you seem to imply here, but then contradict yourself later on when you say:

"Something bad happens, and the DM makes a Hard Move against you. You might have hit or not depending on the situation." - emphasis added

If you might have hit or not, then clearly "success but..." is an option in "fail forward". You hit but something bad happened. That is in fact turning failure into success with mitigating consequences, not merely for the player at a meta-level, but for the character in terms of the fiction!

So I don't believe either Exploder or I am the one that is confused here.

and you really shouldn't try to analyze an entire RPG without actually reading the rules.

I've read the freaking rules! And for all I know Exploder has read them as well.

Actually, you shouldn't try to analyze an entire RPG system without playing the game, but asking that would probably be asking too much.

Yes, it probably would. I wouldn't mind playing DW, and I've been considering running it as a the next level of complexity in a game for my 8 year olds beyond the SIPS system I devised for them back when they were 4, but one of things I've learned over the course of 30 years playing RPGs is that it doesn't necessarily tell you anything to know what system you are playing because two different GMs will take the exact same set of rules and construct two completely different games out of them. Playing DW with you would only show me one such game. It wouldn't tell me what is possible with the game, or whether the game you are playing is the game that the designer is playing. I can pretty much guarantee that if I run DW for my 8 year olds, it will be a different game (but using the same rules) than the one you might run at DragonCon.

 

[Celebrim]

You absolutely couldn't be more wrong

No, Exploder couldn't be more right. He has clearly understood DW on a deep level. His objective analysis is spot on. You don't have to agree with his subjective opinion that this is "bad", and in point of fact I don't, but the objective part of his analysis that DW prioritized the rules over the fiction and makes the fiction serve the rules is exactly right. And his statement that DW primarily has the players interact with the rules rather than the fiction is also exactly right.

This is obvious if you've read the rules of DW. Are you sure you've read the rules of DW?

In traditional RPGs the goal is to create rules that adjudicate the outcome of player propositions in a way that is 'naturalistic'. Fail forward therefore, if it occurs, occurs not because the rules demand it, but because the setting demands it. For example, it might be the case that the players are trying to escape down a corridor and are blocked by an obstacle, and if they fail their fortune roll to remove the obstacle and they are being pursued and the pursuit is a certain distance away that the players will then be caught by the pursuit slowly because they can't change the game state (the obstacle) fast enough. But the rules certainly don't demand that if the game state is unchanged that the narrative changes in some way. Complications don't have to happen.

In DW and other 'new school' RPGs, the rules are intended to adjudicate the outcome of propositions in a way that is 'dramatic' rather than 'natural'. Thus, the rules may actually demand that complications occur whenever the game state fails to change. For example, it might be the case that the players are trying to escape down a corridor and are blocked by an obstacle, and if they fail their fortune roll to remove the obstacle then they are being pursued and pursuit is a certain distance away because they failed the roll and not because it was a prior state of the fiction. This is a subtle but very important distinction. In the first example the drama is relative to the time and space established by the fiction, and the rules look first to this prior existing myth. In the second example, the time and space within the fiction is relative to the drama, and the fiction looks first to the outcome of the dramatic fortune roll. ExploderWizard finds that 'bad', and you can argue that he's wrong about that, but if you argue that he's dead wrong about the priorities and purpose then you are the one that is dead wrong.

Consider further his contention, "What happens in the game world is largely a result of players interacting with the rules structure instead of the setting." If he is in fact wrong about that, why do you think that the DW rules in virtually every example of play go to the extraordinary length of providing an example of the GM misinterpreting what 'move' the game intends to relate to every individual fictional proposition, have the GM be corrected in the example, and then correctly applying the right move for each fictional proposition. I certainly can't think of any other rules set that has gone to this extraordinary of length. (In fact, it's so repetitive in their examples that it became for me a source of humor that the fictional GMs self-deprecating statements in each example could never quite turn from me laughing at the writer to laughing with the rules writer.)

DW goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure that every possible player proposition can be pigeon holed into a narrow mechanical proposition in an effort to ensure that no possible fictional proposition can't be resolved as a narrow rules interaction. And it goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the GM 'gets' which 'move' is intended for any particular sort of proposition. Moreover, it defines 'What you can do' very narrowly in terms of the unique mechanical propositions that you can make - your own personal set of moves. This is unequivocally ensuring that anything that happens within the fiction is the product of the players interacting with a rules structure and that nothing can be said about the fiction that can't be narrowly interpreted mechanically. The moves structure is built around always knowing what rules apply to every fictional proposition. That's it's goal of the design. That why they did it and that why they care so much to teach how to get this mapping right, and why they are willing in all their examples of play to demonstrate stopping play and prioritizing the move over the fiction in order to get the rules interaction right. The rules repeatedly say, that if the GM doesn't 'get' what move you were trying to trigger from your fictional proposition, stop him OOC immediately and restate your intention as a mechanical move. Interaction with the mechanics is prioritized over interaction with the fiction in every single freaking example and yet somehow you don't get this and feel the need to tell ExploderWizard he's absolutely wrong and he needs to go read the rules? Who is not familiar with the rules again?

Now, I don't necessarily feel this arrangement is bad. In a year or two, when one of my girls is ready, I'm considering giving DW rules to her as an option for when she's ready to GM her own games because its a great introductory system because it demands virtually no on the fly rules smithing by the GM and involves comparatively little GM judgment. And I love the way the rules and the system seem to be built around teaching the GM how think about running a game in order to achieve a particular result. There are lots of advice around organizing your thinking as a GM that are just great for a novice GM of any system IMO. But, the mechanics and the system are definitely organized around the sort of things ExploderWizard describes.

 

[Celebrim]

A bit more, because this sort of "You are dead wrong because argument from authority" crap tends to set off the pedagogue in me and all the hours of thoughts I spent arriving at my conclusion come tumbling out.

If that analysis of DW is wrong, consider the alternative way they could have structured their examples of play. If fiction matters more than rules, why not demonstrate that repeatedly by example rather than the reverse? Or at least why not mix up the lessons you were trying to teach in the examples of play?

It would have been completely possible to write the DW rules where in every example of play one person declared a move rather than a fiction, and in every case have another player remind the first player to state their proposition in the form of a fiction. You could have even had examples where the player stated a move, the GM reminded them that the move wasn't important but only the fiction, and then had player state a fiction that implied a different move and agree that this was cool and actually better than what they'd originally imagine. And you could have done that long before you'd ran out creative "Derp." jokes at the GM's expense. The fact that the examples of play weren't written in that way (the way I'd probably have more naturally thought about problems within play) and for all I know weren't even considered as options firmly establishes that the designer is tightly focused on ensuring the that rules are properly applied, and that the fiction is secondary and arises out of the proper application of the rules. This is a designer that is tightly focused on "System matters." theory. The goal appears to be to produce a particular sort of rules machine which, when you insert moves into it, dutifully cranks out interesting stories of a certain kind with minimal reliance on the sort of DM preparation and myth making normally associated with making interesting stories of a particular kind.

The degree to which it succeeds in that I couldn't say exactly, though I admit to being quite skeptical of its basic mechanic as the basis of a generic system. It's very hard to tell whether rules really work as intended until you see them in practice and the range of fictions I see the system generating seems really narrow. Looking back at the 4 years of fictions my own D20 based game has produced and I think at the very broad level, I could have run the story in DW but a lot of the particulars of play would have never occurred to me under a DW system if I'd started there first. Looking at so many of my sessions, the exciting drama involved a chase were standard consequences of failure amount to 'lose a turn' or particulars of time and space that DW is little concerned with or even deprecates (if time is important to the myth, doing nothing is a complication - "They are getting away!"). I think I could do it with the DW rules set, but only because I've come from other rules sets and have prior examples and structures I could adapt the DW rules set to. If I had to guess I'd say that within a narrow range of goals and with a certain sort of GM, DW probably does pretty well but you have to have a particular set of expectations.

 

[Umbran]

A bit more, because this sort of "You are dead wrong because argument from authority" crap tends to set off the pedagogue in me and all the hours of thoughts I spent arriving at my conclusion come tumbling out.

Yes, but not always in the best way....

This is obvious if you've read the rules of DW. Are you sure you've read the rules of DW?

You are by no means the only person doing this, but you are the latest, so you get to be the example.

All of you are old hands. So, this should come as exactly zero surprise:

DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL!

In this one little snide dig, you've pretty much guaranteed that your reasoned arguments will fall on deaf ears. You've engaged his ego, rather than his reason, and his ego will *not* give way to logic, or evidence. You've made it an emotional, personal issue now, so head-butting will continue, probably beyond the point when anyone's actually interested in the topic.

I am your reset button. Continue on without the personal digs, and maybe your conversation can be saved. Continue in this line, and you may find it isn't a "fail forward" scenario.

Are we clear? I hope so. If not, take it to e-mail or PM, please. Thanks for your time and attention, all.

 

[GMMichael]

double post

 

[GMMichael]

Thanks Umbran. Let's keep it respectful.

Interesting things: in Skyrim and Final Fantasy.

Skyrim: while playing the game, I noticed that there are definitely some elements of the game that cannot be called dumbed-down. Some things require investigation, but they are definitely optional parts of the game. So you can find smarter parts of the game - but they might not just fall in your lap.

Final Fantasy IV: this game can't technically be called dumbed-down, because the term requires a predecessor that required more smarts. I'm not sure such a game exists for SNES. Ironically, the RPG I've been working on contains elements used in FF4, which would technically make some of the RPG elements dumbed-down!

Combat positioning: I used the combat-rows from FF4. So, no (rules for) movement rates, concealment, square size, weapon reach...it's thoroughly dumbed-down.

Swooning: FF4 characters don't die. They just swoon. I'm using a rule called Mostly Dead which also means that when your character runs out of health, he'll survive because either he's in a dramatic cut-scene, or his comrades will revive him (life potion), sooner or later.

In my defense though, I've been calling the dumbing-down "streamlining," and there are certainly elements in the game that are an evolution of earlier, simpler concepts: like unlimited defenses per round, for example.

So from a personal perspective: guilty of dumbing-down.

P.S. A long rest gives all hit points back? Really?

 

[Jhaelen]

P.S. A long rest gives all hit points back? Really?

Sure thing. It just depends on how long a 'long' rest is, right?
For realistic recovery rules I like the Ars Magica system. Recovering from severe or critical wounds can take months and there's always a risk of things getting worse and perhaps even dying. Naturally, magic can speed up or even eliminate recovery time (at a cost of investing 'vis', i.e. manifested magic 'energy').

 

[Bluenose]

Sure thing. It just depends on how long a 'long' rest is, right?
For realistic recovery rules I like the Ars Magica system. Recovering from severe or critical wounds can take months and there's always a risk of things getting worse and perhaps even dying. Naturally, magic can speed up or even eliminate recovery time (at a cost of investing 'vis', i.e. manifested magic 'energy').

Or Pendragon, where a wound isn't going to heal until the Winter Phase, and might not do so then depending on the Chirurgery skill of the healer, and where magical healing is something that you'd do a quest for.