D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[zakael19]

First off, I'm not sure there are as many of those as you're implying. I think a pretty fair number are looking for "I get what I want to achieve or I have to find another way." The automatic assumption that failure will translate into additional problems is not something I think that many people are wanting.

But the issue with PbtA is that even when you do get what you want, it often means that something complicating happens. In practice, to many people that means you've made bad results more likely and just thrown them a bone.

Again, if you don't understand why that's an issue for many people, to be blunt I think you're part of the group I was talking about that just doesn't get it.




I largely agree, but the chances involved also matter here. Outside of your area of specialties in the two PbtA games I own, "failure" and "success with consequences" are the biggest part of the probability space.

I’m talking D20 fail forward play here, which stresses evolving the situation on a failure. This is everywhere in 5e GM advice these days, including all the popular “content creators” and such. I’m pretty comfortable saying it’s mainstream.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’m talking D20 fail forward play here, which stresses evolving the situation on a failure.

Does it construct it as "evolving" or "complicating"? Its an important difference. As I mentioned regarding Chill, a failure that still improves things but not to the same extent is "evolving" the situation, but not in a fashion a player will perceive as making the situation worse.

This is everywhere in 5e GM advice these days, including all the popular “content creators” and such. I’m pretty comfortable saying it’s mainstream.

Mainstream does not mean its popular with people depending on my comment above. If the net change is neutral or positive, people will probably be fine with it; otherwise not so much. And again, failure probability matters.

 

[Pedantic]

Well, there's also the issue that unless you're playing over in a hardcore "everything is done with description" system, there are plenty of things you just don't get to do at all without throwing some dice.

I'm coming from a 3e table, primarily. Dice were for fighting and for cases you're forced to use a skill you aren't good at. Nearly everything else came down to creative spell use or invoking a system that output a specific result. There was a lot of leveraging the carry/drag numbers and we were really obsessed with maximizing movement speed, so we could outrun trouble. It was fairly rare that a skill check was actually at stake when the party had some control of the situation.

 

[Umbran]

You’re taking the word narrative too literally. Yes, every campaign results in a sequence of events connected through time, so a narrative can always be constructed after the fact.

However, some play styles aim to create a specific kind of narrative.

I know. Just because I have a different focus than you, don't treat me like I don't know the field. Instead, how about you start by thinking that maybe, just maybe, I have a point - just not your point.

The statement I was responding to here was specific: "cogent narrative".

To me, it is very important that we not have simulation-focused (or other focus) people freak the heck out when narrative gets mentioned in relationship to their games. That gets in the way of communication. And, it gets in the way of them maybe having some tools to make their games more palatable to people whose focus is a bit different than their own, which is a not-uncommon complaint I have heard.

Thus, raising the point that the narrative is there, and in fact important, even if they have another focus, is useful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

All I can say is that I disagree with pretty much all of that advice.

Yes, because your attitude toward D&D is conservative.

I want people guessing, sometimes an insight check doesn't change anything. I'll tell people on a pretty regular basis information I think they're character would know, but it's only because I think they're character would know. If I think they might know something there's a roll and it may or may not change anything.

There can still be plenty of uncertainty about play. What I’m talking about are the procedures of play. Make those all transparent… just put it all out there for your players to see.

I mean… give it a try some time.

I found that it helps my players be more comfortable that they understand the situation as their characters would. And for me as a GM, I find it helps me focus on things that are more interesting for the players to be guessing about rather than just what their characters can see and hear.

If that makes me "conservative" in your opinion that's both holier than though and has nothing to do with why I handle things the way I do. It's what my players enjoy and what I enjoy when playing.

It’s not holier than thou, Al. And it has everything to do with the way you handle play. It’s literally the topic of the thread. There’s nothing wrong with it (other than as the thread says, it can be exhausting) and if that’s what your players are into, that’s fine.

However, some of us have found there are ways that work better for us.

 

[zakael19]

Yes, because your attitude toward D&D is conservative.



There can still be plenty of uncertainty about play. What I’m talking about are the procedures of play. Make those all transparent… just put it all out there for your players to see.

I mean… give it a try some time.

I found that it helps my players be more comfortable that they understand the situation as their characters would. And for me as a GM, I find it helps me focus on things that are more interesting for the players to be guessing about rather than just what their characters can see and hear.



It’s not holier than thou, Al. And it has everything to do with the way you handle play. It’s literally the topic of the thread. There’s nothing wrong with it (other than as the thread says, it can be exhausting) and if that’s what your players are into, that’s fine.

However, some of us have found there are ways that work better for us.

I’m reminded now that of that group of 4 players who’d never played D&D but were huge CR fans & loved BG3, two things from 4e really worked for them even if they ultimately wanted to go back to 5e after: open rolls / monster knowledge & narrative skill challenges for exploration and story progression. They genuinely asked me if they could go back to 5e but just keep doing SCs - which are all set DCs. Heck, I used some of the guidance out there to do 5e Skill Challenges beforehand and they were really well taken.

It’s interesting to see “progress bars” & fail forward really get popular in D20 play with a new generation. Tales of the Valiant has it in the rules, Daggerheart uses a variety of counter designs, I think DC20 has SCs built in…

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know. Just because I have a different focus than you, don't treat me like I don't know the field. Instead, how about you start by thinking that maybe, just maybe, I have a point - just not your point.

The statement I was responding to here was specific: "cogent narrative".

To me, it is very important that we not have simulation-focused (or other focus) people freak the heck out when narrative gets mentioned in relationship to their games. That gets in the way of communication. And, it gets in the way of them maybe having some tools to make their games more palatable to people whose focus is a bit different than their own, which is a not-uncommon complaint I have heard.

Thus, raising the point that the narrative is there, and in fact important, even if they have another focus, is useful.

I'm with Robert on this. The kind of narrative that's part and parcel with simulation-focused games is very different than the sort of thing Narrativist fans routinely bring up in every discussion about kinds of play (if sim fans are "freaking out", as you say, it's about that). I believe that we are all aware that emergent narrative at least is part of all RPGs.

Speaking only for myself personally, the integrated nature of Narrativist-focused games with their mechanics makes much of it of little use to me, more like firmware as opposed to hardware. It would be IMO quite difficult to tease out something useful even if there was something there I liked (and believe it or not, occasionally I do find something).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, because your attitude toward D&D is conservative.



There can still be plenty of uncertainty about play. What I’m talking about are the procedures of play. Make those all transparent… just put it all out there for your players to see.

I mean… give it a try some time.

I found that it helps my players be more comfortable that they understand the situation as their characters would. And for me as a GM, I find it helps me focus on things that are more interesting for the players to be guessing about rather than just what their characters can see and hear.



It’s not holier than thou, Al. And it has everything to do with the way you handle play. It’s literally the topic of the thread. There’s nothing wrong with it (other than as the thread says, it can be exhausting) and if that’s what your players are into, that’s fine.

However, some of us have found there are ways that work better for us.

Agree to disagree. It definitely feels holier than thou, especially since, as I said above, labeling someone as conservative, whether it's in the OP or not, is very often taken as a negative.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agree to disagree. It definitely feels holier than thou, especially since, as I said above, labeling someone as conservative, whether it's in the OP or not, is very often taken as a negative.

It means “wanting to conserve” or to maintain things as they are. It’s literally what you guys are doing. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It means “wanting to conserve” or to maintain things as they are. It’s literally what you guys are doing. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

There isn't, and I know what conservative means, but culturally it is often seen as an unpopular or even problematic stance to take. That idea is what I am reacting to. I hope you see where I'm coming from. There is definitely a feeling that not jumping on the bandwagon for the fresh new idea is seen as a negative. I got this from a Narrativist-leaning poster on this very thread earlier this afternoon.