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

[Micah Sweet]

People are creatures of habit and they invest in specific ways of doing things. I mean, I grew up on AD&D. While I grew tired of certain aspects of that type of game, it's still the most natural and baseline sort of way to play an RPG by default.

But of course it is more complex than that. PbtA type games, depending on how you define it, are only one of many designs that do similar things.

Ok. Do you agree with their general point that everyone's game should be played with the priorities they espouse?

 

[Micah Sweet]

My players have access to a PbtA game. They choose to play in my D&D game instead.

Mine too. Weird.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because "the system is designed to create dramatic story arcs" and "the story arcs are planned in advance" is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I think they're at least different kinds of apples.

 

[hawkeyefan]

They didn't say it could be applied to any game. They said it should be applied to every game. Perhaps you missed that.

No, not at all. It's not something I disagree with. It should be applied to every game, I'd say. I just can't support the "highs are nothing without lows" argument that's been made in this thread and many others. It's an argument for boring play.

You said, "give it a try" and "you're conservative". Are we supposed to believe that those statements have nothing to do with each other?

Haven't I already explained? Do I need to do so again?

 

[robertsconley]

You may not plan stories in advance, but the impression I get strongly suggests to me that a major goal of play is to create dramatic character arcs, so I wouldn't say he's completely off-base here.

After reading up on Burning Wheel and talking to friends who’ve played it extensively since release, I’d describe it more precisely as a game that challenges a character’s beliefs and motivations in dramatic ways. How those challenges play out can vary significantly, often depending on player choices and table culture.

In that regard, it’s not so different from most traditional play styles. Even in my Living World sandbox, players can choose to engage with situations that test their characters' ideals. For example, a paladin caught in a civil war where both factions commit atrocities, each believing their cause is just, faces a moral dilemma that divine guidance alone may not resolve.

The key difference I gathered from those conversations is that Burning Wheel is designed to focus campaigns around such challenges. In contrast, in my Living World sandbox, that sort of narrative is one of many that might emerge, depending on where the players go and what they engage with.

And just to clarify for @pemerton: I’m reporting what came out of those conversations. The friends in question are long-time Burning Wheel players and are also familiar with how my sandbox campaigns work. It became clear they have a different take on the system than the one you’ve presented here.

 

[clearstream]

No, not at all. It's not something I disagree with. It should be applied to every game, I'd say. I just can't support the "highs are nothing without lows" argument that's been made in this thread and many others. It's an argument for boring play.

An argument for play you find boring, is what I'm sure you intended

 

[AlViking]

I think there's a weird thing that happens in how D&D play interacts with what we are acculturated to expect as "appropriate fiction."

EG: in 5e you fail on a lock pick roll. What's the downside? There's a lot of digital ink spilled on "should the players just be able to try again and again? do we bring back the 'take 10' to represent that? do I make a wandering monster roll? something else?"

However, you fail a Persuasion roll to convince somebody that you really should be here Mr. Guard, and my experience is that people tend to start going "welp, time to roll initiative I guess, haha."

What I've seen in the 5e culture space show up pretty hard over the last few years is an idea that "if there's a failed roll, evolve the situation so that something interesting happens." That's certainly how I ran a lot of my 5e before I had any language for this stuff, because I kept struggling with those questions I had above; and watching the players look at each other with a "well what do we do now" sort of expression on a failed task.

For picking locks, if they fail by 10 or more the lock can't be picked. Fail by less than 10 and it's just going to take a while. As far as persuasion it just depends on what the check is for, I sure hope you don't start combat just because you can't get a discount on that smoothie! But most of the time I just judge it based on the current scenario, maybe it makes negotiations more intense but you continue on or if the roll is really below the target a fight starts.

But the point is that I'm judging results of failure based on the scenario. I'm not looking for a way to punish or make failure "interesting" by inventing some negative because that's just not how my game works. Failure can just be a lack of forward progress.

 

[AlViking]

The roll was pointless if they can just retry, because at that point success is guaranteed. That's why I spent half of my response to Thomas Shey talking about gambling for progress. And how if it's just a matter of rerolling until you win, just skip the rolls and move on because the outcome is predetermined. This is why traditional games, largely, require very similar responses to rolls, by the DM, as PbtA games enforce structurally. Because having no response, likely, causes the outcome to be predetermined.

This is also my response to Lanefan here;



But he clarifies;



So he's largely doing as I was intending. By limiting retries he gives the roll some weight. There is a real meaning to a failure assuming success had a real meaning to begin with.

Now obviously, if the required change is cosmetic and meaningless, the roll can still be retried ad nauseam, and the initial problem still exists. But if the change required to retry costs something, then not allowing retries is sufficient to give the roll meaning. The roll changes the status quo.

This is why rolling on a chance of success, without consequence, is a problem. And why PbtA-style reactions to failures are needed in traditional games, albeit in a slightly different form. Because the outcome becomes predetermined if you don't.

So you have to add cost to the failure of a roll, or you simply are prompting pointless rolls. The FrozenNorth post I cited demonstrates what happens when a roll has no meaningful consequence. The roll can be repeated until the players get the desired outcome, and that's a waste of time because success is guaranteed.

I hope that helps clarify what I meant. I think the response applies to Lanefan too, which is why I used his post as an example.

TLDR: Not allowing retries can often be sufficient to solve the problem I am alluding to in my posts.

EDIT: Hawkeye did a better job explaining my position than I did. Hmph!

I almost never allow retries unless, like @Lanefan, something changes. When I ask for a check when they're going to eventually be successful anyway it's because it matters whether or not it happens in a few seconds or after several minutes from the perspective of the characters. There are times when there is no consequence to failure but I'll still call for a roll because the characters (and hence the players) don't know that there is no consequence to failure. Want to judge the emotional state of an NPC because you don't trust them but as DM I know they're being completely open and honest? Roll for insight because I don't reveal information I think the characters do not have.

 

[AlViking]

I suggested you give it a try, yes. I didn't say you would "like my way if only you weren't too conservative to give it a try".



Listen... I get it if you don't like when people offer advice that you don't think is relevant to the topic. But given the topic of this thread, I just don't see the issue here. What are you expecting in this discussion? I mean, it's not like I'm barreling into every D&D thread and talking about narrativist games non-stop. I'm talking about it in one thread where the topic is about the conservatism of D&D.

Some posters pretty clearly state that their way is better. It doesn't apply to all of the people posting on this thread. But I also don't see how it contributes to a discussion on a D&D sub-forum, D&D General thread when it doesn't have any application to D&D or related games.

 

[AlViking]

He is limiting retries in a logical, verisimilitudinous way. That makes a difference to some of us. It's not just about results.

Exactly. I don't base any reaction, any result of character actions on narrative reasons for moving the story forward. I base them on what logically follows the fiction of the world. Now, I sure hope that the fiction of the world is exciting and interesting overall but saying "You failed therefore something must happen" feels artificial to me. Which is one of the reasons I don't find an attraction to narrative games.