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

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, what might be worth skipping in this way may vary.

But my point that doing so won't harm the consistency or continuity of a game still stands.

Unless there's a difference between players (or between a player or players and the GM) about whether or not a particular thing should be skipped. I just think there's too much variance here to just make your preference into some kind of "best practice" that crosses rules systems and playstyles.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That depends on the GM.

Also the edition. Two of the above spells don't exist in 5e, for example. It's also possible that the casters didn't prepare the "right" spell, which is entirely unfair of the GM to think, because the character only has so many spell slots and they can't prepare everything they might need.


I think you're missing the point here, or looking at it too narrowly. The point is, part of the adventure is gatekeeped (gatekept?) behind a die roll. It could be a door, but it could be anything else. A wall that the party fails to climb, a chasm they can't cross, a puzzle they can't solve, anything like that. Failure here stops the players from progressing and ends up being a boring waste of time.

If the party can't get through the door, then what has happened? Have they expended resources? Is it likely that they'll be found out or their quarry has escaped in the time they took? If the only thing that happens is that the players have wasted their time, then the entire encounter was a waste of time. Nothing was accomplished and nothing interesting happened on the failure, other than the party can't continue.

That happens in real life though, and furthermore, unless your group is extraordinarily goal-oriented, simple failure can be worthwhile regardless, in that, "I appreciated and enjoyed the process and the time spent roleplaying and interacting with the world" sort of way. Certainly I personally consider that valuable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

13th Age has a similar "Fail Forward" philosophy:
"...outside of battle, true failure tends to slow action down rather than move the action along. A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that’s because something interesting happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens. Alternatively, the character succeeds at what they set out to accomplish, but discovers that success has complications!"

They go on to give examples of failing a climbing check doesn't necessarily mean falling to your death; maybe it means you disturbed the rocks enough to awaken a werebear who was trying to hibernate. Failing the Gather Information check doesn't mean you don't get anything, but that the target has become aware of your inquiries and has laid a trap. That kind of thing.

That is an explanation of a playstyle preference. It's good if moving action along and making "progress" is a major priority for your play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Unless there's a difference between players (or between a player or players and the GM) about whether or not a particular thing should be skipped. I just think there's too.much variance here to just make your preference into some kind of "best practice" that crosses rules systems and playstyles.

Nah, I think it's still good general advice. The group should talk about it ahead of play, and revisit the topic as needed. But once a general consensus is reached, it helps speed things along.

I mean, every game does this to some extent... it's really not problematic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah, I think it's still good general advice. The group should talk about it ahead of play, and revisit the topic as needed. But once a general consensus is reached, it helps speed things along.

I mean, every game does this to some extent... it's really not problematic.

Agree to disagree then. I think this sort of thing should be navigated on a case-by-case basis, and thus can't be applied universally (even in principle) as you suggest.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agree to disagree then. I think this sort of thing should be navigated on a case-by-case basis, and thus can't be applied universally (even in principle) as you suggest.

Yes, of course! nothing new can happen! Even if it's not new and we all do it to some extent anyway!

Never change!!!!

 

[jayoungr]

Yes, of course! nothing new can happen! Even if it's not new and we all do it to some extent anyway!

If it's not new, then novelty is not the issue. Is it so weird that some people might have a genuine preference for a different playstyle?

(I personally have no particular stake in this discussion, as I feel pretty neutral on failing vs failing forward. I've played and enjoyed games of both styles.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, of course! nothing new can happen! Even if it's not new and we all do it to some extent anyway!

Never change!!!!

Change all you want, but at your own table for you and your people. Don't make other people change. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Pedantic]

I agree. The idea that you can't get past by this one particular way should be used sparingly at best, but there should always be ways to pass through that are interesting and let the game move on.

I suppose a mechanical consideration of this that does deserve more attention is that not having fail forward style contingent fiction works best when you have competent and powerful PCs with high agency abilities. If the only play the PC's have is a roll to unlock a door and a roll to break it and no other real points of interaction (or any other viable way to get at what's behind it that they really care about) then it's definitely more problematic to stall there.

 

[AlViking]

Change all you want, but at your own table for you and your people. Don't make other people change. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Change simply for the sake of change doesn't buy anything for me. I'm not playing D&D because I'm in love with the rules (although I do like them), I'm playing D&D because it still lets me tell new stories when I DM and enjoy new stories when I play. Personally I would call my approach character first - the character I'm playing or the characters I'm running games for - come before the rules of the game. As long as the game's rules don't get in the way of how I want to run my character or how I want to GM, I'm okay with it. That can include restrictions of course, I don't expect my D&D fighter to suddenly find a phone booth (or would the equivalent in D&D be an outhouse?) and transform into Superman.

Which .. not that this has anything to do with my reason for replying just something I realize ... is probably one of my biggest issues with the way many narrative games are described. That for every action/move there is typically an equal and opposite reaction. You have to make the reactions fit the fiction; it's backwards to me. It's putting the rules over the characters and the fiction of the world.

Anyway, now I'm just rambling.