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

[Micah Sweet]

Normally there will be an informational-difference. It seems like temporal linearity is normal in sandbox play; I wonder though, if changing that does any real harm to sandbox? Perhaps because in our real-world experience we don't experience any abilty to change the past, a mode of play that prioritises feeling like one is in a real-world would be adverse to flashbacks (even when they are explained as not involving time travel the experienced time-sequence stops being linear.)

That's how I see it. If you want to go back in time to have done something, somebody involved better have a time-traveling phone booth on hand.

Remember the trash can.

 

[zakael19]

Appeal to popularity. The current edition of the most popular RPG appears to support their point, which somehow makes it more correct.

No, it's just a constant mantra of going back to the premise of this thread which at least I enjoy doing. If the 5.24 guidance has updated, I think that's indicative of the state of play culture (they did after all have. bunch of the Big Names consult).

 

[Maxperson]

Is it right here to draw attention to the corrolary, in fail-forward play we don't roll when nothing much happens on failure. This is spelled out in Daggerheart's "if failure would be boring".

That's basically how 5e is supposed to play as well. You only roll when the outcome is in doubt, but the DMG modifies that to "When the outcome is in doubt, and there are meaningful consequences for failure."

That still doesn't mean that the outcome will be terribly interesting, but it doesn't rule out "nothing much happens on failure."

 

[zakael19]

Is it right here to draw attention to the corrolary, in fail-forward play we don't roll when nothing much happens on failure. This is spelled out in Daggerheart's "if failure would be boring".

The simple fail enjoyer might say in return that a line of action being stymied such as a lock not being picked, is not a case of "nothing much happens". That could also imply different measures for supposed single-point-of-failure problems: it would mean only extreme cases -- or possibly no cases -- of being stymied by failure trouble the play group.

I can absolutely see simple failure as being a critical component of game play where the intent is to apply constraints through the game world to enhance player problem solving and creativity. OSR & dungeon/skill focused play comes to mind, where you often don't even get to the point of rolling and if you are failure needs to be on the table because what it should mean is "go be creative problem solvers."

Like Winter's Daughter has a main door that you can fail to have the Strength stat on hand to open quite easily/fail the roll/and the question is now "did you bring tools to chip it open, or want to explore around?" Because the module has alternate (more dangerous) entries.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it's just a constant mantra of going back to the premise of this thread which at least I enjoy doing. If the 5.24 guidance has updated, I think that's indicative of the state of play culture (they did after all have. bunch of the Big Names consult).

I haven't been in the majority of the play culture in many years, and I've learned to live with that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem you are running into is that the bolded is contradictory. There can be no "must" when anyone can say "no." Nobody can be forced(must) to do anything under such a rule.

But there can. "You are obligated unless you object" is still forcing people to do something. They have to speak up to not do it. It is expected, unless you get a waiver. As a good example, when I was a child, kids in elementary school had to chew a fluoride supplement each day, unless their parents requested a waiver.

You can absolutely have an obligation that people can choose to opt out of. And that is quite different from having a resource on hand, but which each person must elect to make use of.

 

[Maxperson]

But there can. "You are obligated unless you object" is still forcing people to do something. They have to speak up to not do it. It is expected, unless you get a waiver. As a good example, when I was a child, kids in elementary school had to chew a fluoride supplement each day, unless their parents requested a waiver.

You can absolutely have an obligation that people can choose to opt out of. And that is quite different from having a resource on hand, but which each person must elect to make use of.

I don't see "forcing people" to do what everyone already does at an amusement park as forcing them. We already decide yes or no to every ride as we pass it. Sometimes it's in the moment and we decide as we pass the rides, and sometimes we make that decision by saying, "Let's rush to get on Indiana Jones first" which builds in a no to the other rides as you pass them.

If you don't want to be "forced" to make that decision, you have to opt not to go to the amusement park in the first place. That's the only way to avoid having to make decisions about what rides you go on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But there can. "You are obligated unless you object" is still forcing people to do something. They have to speak up to not do it. It is expected, unless you get a waiver. As a good example, when I was a child, kids in elementary school had to chew a fluoride supplement each day, unless their parents requested a waiver.

You can absolutely have an obligation that people can choose to opt out of. And that is quite different from having a resource on hand, but which each person must elect to make use of.

It might feel different to you (and that's perfectly valid), but to me the fact is if you have a built-in, acceptable way to opt out of an obligation, then it's not an obligation.

 

[Pedantic]

Normally there will be an informational-difference. It seems like temporal linearity is normal in sandbox play; I wonder though, if changing that does any real harm to sandbox? Perhaps because in our real-world experience we don't experience any abilty to change the past, a mode of play that prioritises feeling like one is in a real-world would be adverse to flashbacks (even when they are explained as not involving time travel the experienced time-sequence stops being linear.)

One dreads the conversation turning toward "immersion" or "realism" but I've argued before that forward facing causality of action declaration->resolution is an underlying prerequisite off players looking for that experience.

 

[FrogReaver]

When these coincidences happen every time I fail a roll, they're no longer coincidences.

Exactly.

I posted some actual examples from play:
Where is the unreasonable coincidence in these examples?

The initial claim paraphrased 'too many coincidences makes something as a whole implausible'.

An excerpt about one individual coincidence can never be a counterpoint to that. Likewise, even combining a few excerpts into an example when they only constitute but a small fraction of the whole can never be a counterpoint to that either, because it obscures just how many coincidences are actually occurring and without that information no one can say whether there were enough coincidences in the whole to make it seem implausible to them.

Thus, I don't understand why you think your example is relevant to that claim.