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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Right there with you on fiction over rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

This is a pretty important issue in regard to this. You can kind of afford to be sloppy in doing this sort of thing in a superhero setting, because if you have any problem, its the players potentially bypassing so much of the problem you don't really have a game (and it matters a lot more there, as superheroes are generally reactive).

On the other hand, characters in a middlin' gritty post-apocalypse setting may well have limited tools to address a problem, so closing off too many of them can lead to to a largely pointless dead end (and I understand Micah's take on "the journey is the point", but I don't honestly think that's a consistent enough view among players to assume it'll work for them without pre-sorting for that group).

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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.

I think this is where I start to lose interest in a lot of new systems, and maybe where I diverge from much of the conversation that happens around here. It's the idea of rules as a framework or rules as gameplay.

For me, the big thing when picking a system, and why I continue with 5e as a primary, is the rules don't get in the way. As soon as they rules start inserting themselves between myself and the "story" or "fiction" or they start imposing unnatural rhythms, its a problem. The game begins to feel like something else entirely. It stops being a shared experience I'm looking for and starts becoming an exercise in navigating mechanics.

The truth is, the game I play doesn’t actually change that much when I switch systems. Whether it’s D&D 5e, Mörk Borg, Shadowdark, or even Call of Cthulhu, the setting might shift and the flavor might differ — but the emotional reward stays the same. The underlying flow of the game is unchanged. Characters interact, scenes are described, characters interact some more. The fun isn’t coming from the mechanics, it’s coming from the people at the table and the fiction we create together. The rules are there to support that, not steer it.

I think this is why I have so little interest in discussions about the mechanics themselves. About theoretical balance. About why one system might be better than another for a certain kind of game. It's because it was never about the system, it's about everything else. To me, the rules are just a toolbox; useful when needed, invisible when not.

Now I'm rambling!

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Real life is often boring, frustrating, or all-around awful, none of which are good things for a game. If the players are actually enjoying roleplaying through failing to do a thing, then that's one thing, but if they're doing it because they have no other choice, that's another thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think this is why I have so little interest in discussions about the mechanics themselves. About theoretical balance. About why one system might be better than another for a certain kind of game. It's because it was never about the system, it's about everything else. To me, the rules are just a toolbox; useful when needed, invisible when not.

Now I'm rambling!

Yeah, for some of us interacting with the mechanics isn't just something on the way to the story, its part of the point in the exercise. As I've said before I consider the "game" every bit as important as the "roleplaying" or I'd just be doing some flavor of freeform roleplaying (and I did in the past when I used to be on MUSHes).

 

[Campbell]

I think this is where I start to lose interest in a lot of new systems, and maybe where I diverge from much of the conversation that happens around here. It's the idea of rules as a framework or rules as gameplay.

For me, the big thing when picking a system, and why I continue with 5e as a primary, is the rules don't get in the way. As soon as they rules start inserting themselves between myself and the "story" or "fiction" or they start imposing unnatural rhythms, its a problem. The game begins to feel like something else entirely. It stops being a shared experience I'm looking for and starts becoming an exercise in navigating mechanics.

The truth is, the game I play doesn’t actually change that much when I switch systems. Whether it’s D&D 5e, Mörk Borg, Shadowdark, or even Call of Cthulhu, the setting might shift and the flavor might differ — but the emotional reward stays the same. The underlying flow of the game is unchanged. Characters interact, scenes are described, characters interact some more. The fun isn’t coming from the mechanics, it’s coming from the people at the table and the fiction we create together. The rules are there to support that, not steer it.

I think this is why I have so little interest in discussions about the mechanics themselves. About theoretical balance. About why one system might be better than another for a certain kind of game. It's because it was never about the system, it's about everything else. To me, the rules are just a toolbox; useful when needed, invisible when not.

Now I'm rambling!

So, in Narrativist play the fun is still coming from the people and the fiction we create together. We are just creating it differently. The structure is different, the technique is different, and the rules are there to support it. Different play methodologies just require different sorts of support.

Part of what we see is that Narrativist games have to teach you how to play in a Narrativist way just like D&D attempts to teach you how to build worlds, adventures and campaigns. They're just fundamentally different games, structurally.

Mork Borg and 5e are like Hearts and Euchre. Fundamentally structured the same with some minor variations in how this or that works.

D&D and Apocalypse World are like Euchre and Poker. We're still playing the same broad category of game, but our orientation to it and activity itself are very different.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Yeah, for some of us interacting with the mechanics isn't just something on the way to the story, its part of the point in the exercise. As I've said before I consider the "game" every bit as important as the "roleplaying" or I'd just be doing some flavor of freeform roleplaying (and I did in the past when I used to be on MUSHes).

There is a wonderful serenity to the idea that the hobby is big enough for both of us.

 

[Campbell]

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.

It's not putting the rules over the fiction and is still very much constrained by the shared fiction (what has been established). Both the rules and not yet defined elements of the setting are serving the game's agenda. So, in a game like Monsterhearts that's keeping focus on these teenage monsters who are unsure of themselves, have this personal darkness they are dealing with and feelings they're not sure about, etc. It's choosing complications that speak to the premise of the individual characters.

Nothing about this is because it's what the rules say. It's because we're playing a game where we want to focus on the character's struggles and see who they are coming out the other end.

The way Monsterhearts structures the conversation is not important because it's the rules. It's important because it's the foundation of this thing we are doing because we need the GM to frame these scenes so our characters can be tested. In the same way that D&D requires the DM to describe the dungeon environment so it can be explored.

One is not more rules bound than the other. The roles are different because the play is different.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

So, in Narrativist play the fun is still coming from the people and the fiction we create together. We are just creating it differently. The structure is different, the technique is different, and the rules are there to support it. Different play methodologies just require different sorts of support.

Part of what we see is that Narrativist games have to teach you how to play in a Narrativist way just like D&D attempts to teach you how to build worlds, adventures and campaigns. They're just fundamentally different games, structurally.

Mork Borg and 5e are like Hearts and Euchre. Fundamentally structured the same with some minor variations in how this or that works.

D&D and Apocalypse World are like Euchre and Poker. We're still playing the same broad category of game, but our orientation to it and activity itself are very different.

I loved Euchre in college. It's a great little card game with a deceptive amount of depth. Maybe there's something with 5e being Euchre. And funnily enough, I never got into Poker or Dungeon World. Strange that the analogy worked out that way.

I'm pretty pliable. @EzekielRaiden taught me that I was wrong about how I perceived the balance between GM and player. @Micah Sweet and @AlViking taught me, in this very thread, how not everyone values the "game" side as much as I do, in our discussions about consequences to rolls.

Maybe, over time — through discussions like this one, and from people showing me the beauty of Narrativist systems — I’ll come to see what I’m missing. But right now, I don’t feel like I need a system that shapes my play or imposes a distinct rhythm. When it does, it feels like it’s pulling me out of a flow I already know, enjoy, and trust.

Still, I’m genuinely blown away by the passion of you and others for that style of game. You all inspire me to go and seek out a Dungeon World game, not because it looks interesting on it's face, but because I see so many speak so highly of it.

So ask me in a few months how I feel. Maybe, like the others I mentioned, you’ll end up helping me change my mind.

 

[Lanefan]

It depends on the context, but for some of these:

• Some doors can be forcibly opened that way, some can't. Many dungeon doors are made of stone or metal, for example--that's been my experience with doors in 5e, for example. Wooden ones are rarely an impediment, and stone ones aren't realistically gonna yield to mere hammer blows.
• "Removal of hinges" is one of those ideas that only makes sense if the GM isn't really thinking through the design of the dungeon. If the hinges are accessible from the side of the door that's meant to keep people out, the lock is worthless and the architects were idiots, which might happen very rarely but can't be relied upon.
• Most of the spells you've mentioned are not a reliable tool for several reasons. In older-style D&D play, such as your game, IIRC spells are only received randomly and there's no guarantee you'll find them out in the world either. I'm not familiar with warp wood (sounds like a Priest spell?), but that depends on the door being wood, so same issue as the first bullet point.
• Depending on the rules involved, it's not always possible to shapeshift into something small enough to slip under the door. Certainly in Dungeon World that'd be a thing, for example, but in 3.5e, Druids cannot shapeshift into any size smaller than Tiny, which is two size categories too big to fit under most doors (you need to go past Tiny and Diminuitive down to "Fine", which is <6 in tall/long).
• Dimension door is almost surely a success if the door can then be removed afterwards, but is a pretty powerful spell to blow on just potentially getting past a door (4th level in every edition I can find--surprisingly, even in 3e which often had spells at wildly different levels depending on class). Players might rightfully question the worth of such a thing.

Sure, not all of these are going to work every time, but the options are still there to try. IME most mages try to get their mitts on Knock as soon as they can, also in my game it doesn't have the alarm-bell feature that 5e gave it.

And if the door opens toward you, the hinges have to be on your side somewhere. If it opens away from you, they won't be, but kicking the door in becomes far more viable. The tricky ones are sliding doors.

I've once or twice even seen situations in stone caverns or buildings where a party Dwarf spent a few hours and, using the rules for Dwarven mining, mined his way around a stuck door!

The other option that every party has, and that I didn't list, is to go back to town and gather more resources and-or more people specific to the task at hand. For example, if the party doesn't have Knock available, go back and recruit or hire a wizard that can cast it. If the party doesn't have a lock-picker, go back and recruit or hire one.

Another one - again at higher level - we did not long ago in the game I play in is the party mage polymorphed herself into an Umber Hulk and simply dug us a tunnel down from the surface in order to get into an area we knew was there but couldn't otherwise access.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Surely, though, it would be good for GMs-in-general to know and have the use of tools that can address these issues? Surely it would be beneficial to have ways to teach GMs without forcing them to make stupid mistake after stupid mistake after stupid mistake in order to finally stumble into wiser ways to approach a problem?

We probably differ in that I don't see insurmountable (or seemingly-insurmountable) obstacles as being a stupid mistake. To me, they're just part of the setting - sometimes either by good in-fiction design or bad at-table luck you're just not going to get there from here no matter what you do. So be it.

Like...that's literally what makes humans special. We can build up one lifetime's worth of knowledge...and then condense it into a few books, perhaps a small bookshelf worth of reading, which another human can then digest and understand in mere days, perhaps weeks. Developing tools and processes and procedures and guidelines and rules of thumb and (etc., etc., etc.) so that those who come after us don't have to blindly stumble in the dark until they find the way a thousand other people silently found already but failed to communicate to them.

That's one of many reasons why I talk about tools of various kinds (procedures, processes, guidelines, rules of thumb, best practices, SOPs, etc.), and why I almost always ask about them when I want to know more about a style I don't yet know. Those things are human power in action. And it's why I see TTRPG design (not play, design) as a technology; because our techniques can in fact get better. We can recognize where there are flawed behaviors, like the whole "force the rogue to roll Sneak and Move Silently every five seconds, and they are immediately seen and captured/attacked when they fail" problem, which is addressed by Let It Ride, a technique that even many very, very experienced and otherwise high-quality GMs simply do not learn on their own.

We can--and should--identify places where problems commonly occur, or where there is a serious risk of very severe problems, and look for ways to prepare ourselves and those who will come after us against such pitfalls. That's not in any way a deprecation of the importance of human judgment. It's not in any way replacing humans with robots. It is simply recognizing that it is often easy to run into problems you don't realize are a problem, and even when you DO know there's a problem, knowing you have a problem and knowing how to solve it are VERY different things. Giving others--both contemporary and in posterity--tools to address the problems we know we have means they can be focused on dealing with whatever new problems will inevitably arise in the spaces between the up-front problems we dealt with.

The problem (sorry!) there is defining what is in fact a universal problem, because what some see as a problem others might see as a feature or benefit.

It depends on whether the party HAS to get through the door or not, doesn't it? One of the reasons behind "fail forward" is specifically to teach GMs that there is a different way to deal with a "single point of failure" problem. That is, sometimes you're going to only realize something was a single point of failure too late to directly address it--or you're improvising and didn't think that far ahead, or you truly want this to be a single point of failure because that creates tension, or whatever else. But a single point of failure where the only result of failure is "the game grinds to a halt because nothing happens nor can happen" is pretty blatantly a bad thing.

I disagree. I can't think of a situation in which "nothing can ever happen", but I can think of many a situation where "nothing can ever happen given what the party can bring to bear right here and right now". Again, they might just have to get creative and think outside - sometimes way outside - the box.

Fail forward, as a rule of thumb, means that even if the party gets struck by such a thing, the pace of the experience and the enjoyment of play don't get drained away as the party sits there, waiting for one of their schemes to finally, finally, FINALLY open the stupid friggin' door.

One of the loudest at-table cheer-and-high-five experiences I've ever seen in a game happened many years ago. I was a player, we'd met a door we had to get through, and the only - and I mean ONLY - way to get this thing open was to answer a riddle.

We spent two and a half sessions trying to figure out this damned riddle; in hindsight of course the answer was obvious but at the time we just couldn't see it, and when we finally got it there were cheers all round!