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

[Micah Sweet]

It's not just feeling different.

As a child, I was obligated to chew fluoride tablets, unless I opted out. That is still an obligation. It is, in fact, VERY different from "we have fluoride tablets, you may take one each day".

"We will do X each time, unless you tell me no" is not, not logically and not practically, the same as "we can do X any time someone wants to". The former is, explicitly, an obligation to participate unless someone opts out.

Oh, how about this? "We will collect your personal information and sell it, unless you opt out" is legally completely different from "you can offer your personal information if you wish to". The two are VERY different, and European law explicitly rejected the idea that opt-out data collection was acceptable. That's why most every website now has a "what info do you want to share?" thinger, because they need it to comply with European law. You must opt in to data collection before it can happen, not opting out of data collection that is presumed until you say "no".

Ok, but I don't see anything in gaming where the stakes are high enough for that distinction to matter there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is where we diverged.

Either I'm running a game where inexperienced adventurers are expected to be able to handle long distance journeys into the wilderness, or I'm not.

You. Aren't. Everyone.

If I am, then I can't forsee a sequence of events that will create such a dire situation. If a lost map and some bad weather are enough to ruin them, then the game isn't one where this type of expedition is a safe option.

It wasn't just bad weather. It was sufficiently bad weather that staying where they were was untenable.

And if it's not a safe option, this should be clear to the players. Heading into the wilderness under such circumstances should occur either with the correct skills and preparation or with a readiness for death and failure.

As I said before, "should" is doing some heavy lifting here.

To me, your scenario presents a situation where no one has put any thought into consequences. While I accept it's possible, I see it as a failure of design and/or communication by the GM. I do not see this as something that should be treated as an expected outcome.

All it requires is someone doing so. In particular, the easy case is the GM not looking at what his weather tables mean in terms of the situation the PCs are in, or writing it off because weather that severe is a low probability event.

If you don't think people do these sorts of things, you're simply wrong, because I've seen it happen more than once over the decades, even among otherwise good GMs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I read this correctly it relates to the debate on fail-forward where the "crappy design" is the simple fail mechanic not handling a 'single point of failure' edge case. It seems to assume an intended line of play that cannot be pursued, somewhat in contradiction to the general premises of sandbox but I suppose to be arising in some modes of play that could include narrativism were a line of play meaningful to a player blocked.

The debate seems somewhat mired to my reading, however the reference here to "design" suggests to me looking at the problem through the lense of kinds of design innovation. One kind is that which does a job I want to do without changing my purpose (I still want to do exactly that job.) An example might be the evolution from THACO to d20 roll over AC. Another kind changes the job I want to do in a way that I value (I now want to do a different job, whether that be mainly similar or greatly dissimilar.)

To my reading, some participants have a job they want to do and see fail forward as changing that job to do in ways they do not value. Non-adoption of fail forward for them is not tolerating crappy design, it's non-adoption of an innovation that doesn't fit their purposes (and there seems ample testimony that it goes against them.) Through a 'satisfying-jobs-to-do' lense, simple fail is "crappy design" only if fail-forward improves on the jobs simple fail satisfies without changing them. (Including that the point-of-failure edge case would need to matter to those with those jobs to do.)

The reason I assay this line of reasoning is that I repeatedly observe that game mechanics can be improved. They may be improved severally (refinements on individual mechanics), in the ways they are structured and work together collectively (the way they are assembled into procedures, are invoked and interact), and in contexts created for them by principles (how they are interpreted, given weight, subject to discretion, extrapolated from, assigned, and so on.) So it matters to me whether simple fail has been straightforwardly improved upon by the strictly-better fail-forward, or whether fail-forward changes the job to do.

In this case, it’s not about fail forward. It’s about a GM designing a dungeon or a scenario where there is one path forward to resolution, and if the PCs somehow miss that one path, then the scenario cannot be resolved.

I think that’s poor design. Whether it’s an individual secret door that yields the treasure or an NPC who can only be fought rather than bargained with… and so on.

I consider that poor design. I’m also pretty surprised to see this idea get pushback… this is pretty common and sensible advice that’s been around for years.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have played in a fashion where rolls tend to be extremely rare since the 80s or 90s. If there is no combat, it would not be unusual for there to be no more than two or three player-facing rolls in an 8 hour session. When I'm running an OSR game, the only rolls the players are likely make outside of combat are saves.

The "problem" is not that I am used to to running games where there are lots of rolls, and my opinion would change if only I understood that I can run a game that involves fewer rolls at more critical times.

The problem is the philosophy behind the mechanics does does not suit my style of play, in part because I feel it stretches plausability. Even if only truly critical events (however you choose to establish what's critical) use the roll, the process still stretches credulity for me.

If I really try, I can almost see how I could accept the die results as plausible, if I really, truly, only called for a roll when there is a clear and obvious case of logical, plausible, interesting outcomes regardless or pass or fail. Note that this is not about frequency of rolls, it's about the entire reason for rolling. But at this point, I would see the process of when to call for a die roll being at odds with the role I want for dice in the game. So, yay, you can consider yourself a winner, because maybe I would see it as plausible, it's just that you've now turned the game into something where it no longer matters if it's plausible, because I've already lost all interest anyway.

I do not need to be saved. I do not need to be show how awesome fail forward is, if only I truly get it. I do not need to alter the rate at which I call for rolls. And you'll be just fine, even if I never share your views on fail forward. But, if it really matters that much to you that I agree that fail forward, when used in the way all right-thinking gamers should, is always going to be plausible, then feel free to take my comments above as proof of your rightness in this matter.


I mean, you're definitely making a lot of assumptions about which games I've run, how I've run them, and how I would feel if I ran them differently. And you're definitely making erroneous assumptions about how often I call for rolls.

I think you’ve misunderstood the intention my post. I’m not trying to change your mind nor am I really making a guess about why or how often you call for rolls.

I was trying to explain to you why you continue to get pushback. It’s because of the way you’re wording your criticism.

 

[Faolyn]

Absent kryptonite, Superman has about +40 in any skill you can possibly think of; and he doesn't auto-fail on a 1.

Which is part of what makes him the most boring superhero ever.

The PCs, on the other hand, don't have +40 to every skill roll they ever make and thus can - and do - fail at what they try, on a fairly frequent basis. This is a great part of what makes them interesting: they're not perfect.

The other question, that I poked at upthread but got no feedback on, is one of resolution granularity. You want "Climb the cliff to save my friend" to be all one action, I want it to be at least two discrete actions (and maybe more depending what awaits at the cliff-top) each resolved separately. For example, you could succeed easily at climbing the cliff (step 1) but then still succeed or fail on whatever it is you do to try to save your friend (step 2). But if you fail climbing the cliff you never get to your friend, who is now hosed.

I'm going to quote from the new Daggerheart game here, which uses Rolling With Hope to indicate a "good" thing happening (whether or not you succeed) and Rolling With Fear to indicate a "bad" thing happening (again, whether or not you succeed); I bolded those bits:

EXAMPLE ACTION ROLL
Aliyah’s warrior Tabby is trying to run across a narrow parapet to stop a mage who is raining spellfire down on her party. The GM, Stella, tells Aliyah to make an Agility Roll with a Difficulty of 15. Tabby has a +2 Agility, so Aliyah rolls the Duality Dice, adds them together, then adds 2 tokens (representing her +2 modifier from Agility) to get her total.

Here are examples of the five possible results of her roll:

FAILURE WITH FEAR
Aliyah rolls 3 on the Hope Die and 6 on the Fear Die, then adds 2 from her Agility for a result of 11 with Fear. 11 is below the roll’s Difficulty. Stella gains Fear and, because play passes back to her on a failure, describes the mage making an attack roll in response to Tabby’s maneuver. The attack is successful, so the mage knocks her off the parapet with a blast of magical fire and deals damage. Tabby crashes down to the ground below and must find a way back up if she plans to face the mage head-on again.

FAILURE WITH HOPE
Aliyah rolls 6 on the Hope Die and 3 on the Fear Die, then adds 2 from her Agility. That’s an 11 with Hope. A total of 11 isn’t enough to make it across safely, so on a failure, Stella makes a move, narrating that the mage sees Tabby coming and makes an attack, which succeeds. The mage’s blast knocks Tabby offbalance, leaving her dangling from the parapet, her progress stalled and position precarious. Tabby gains a Hope, but her friends are still in the line of fire and might need to help her reach safety.

SUCCESS WITH FEAR
Aliyah rolls 5 on the Hope Die and a 9 on the Fear Die, then adds 2 from her Agility. That’s a 16 with Fear, so it’s a success. Stella gains Fear, then asks Aliyah to describe how she races across the parapet, dodging the mage’s blasts. After her description, Stella takes over, saying that once Tabby has crossed, she faces her foe head-on, blocking them from attacking the rest of the party. But as the consequence for a result with Fear—the mage reaches out with magic and crumbles the parapet behind Tabby, leaving her trapped and unable to move back to safety. At least the mage isn’t attacking her friends, right?

SUCCESS WITH HOPE
Aliyah rolls 10 on the Hope Die and 6 on the Fear Die, then adds 2 from her Agility. That’s an 18 with Hope, so it’s a success. She immediately gains a Hope, then Stella asks her to describe what it looks like as Tabby races across the parapet and interrupts the mage’s assault on the party. Since Aliyah rolled a success with Hope, Stella asks what the players want to do next.

CRITICAL SUCCESS
Aliyah rolls 8 on the Hope Die and 8 on the Fear Die. That’s a critical success! Tabby immediately gains a Hope and clears a Stress. Stella offers Aliyah a choice of two extra benefits— she can deal damage to the mage or gain advantage on the next roll against the mage. Aliyah describes how Tabby races across the parapet and lands a solid blow on the mage, not just stopping their attacks on the party, but dealing weapon damage as well. Since a critical success counts as a roll with Hope, Stella asks the players what they want to do next.

So with your example, on a failed roll, you climb the cliff, but not nearly in time to save your friend; they don't necessarily die (unless that's a likely result), but they're definitely harmed in some way. On a success, you save them, but whatever was menacing your friend is still there. On a really good success, you are capable of hurting or maybe even driving off whatever was menacing your friend (maybe it's a free attack, or a surprise round). On a really bad failure, you take some damage in your mad scramble up the cliffside.

 

[Faolyn]

We've been told such a game can't happen.

I'm pretty sure we've been told that it shouldn't happen. If it can't happen, then there wouldn't be lengthy essays and articles about how to not have such a problem, such as the Alexandrian's Three Clue Rule, nor would anyone use Jennell Jaquays name as a verb used in connection with dungeon design.

 

[Faolyn]

LOL.

No. I haven't looked at every single sandbox ever made. That's true.

Just every single one that's been brought up as an example in this thread.

Show me a sandbox for D&D where the level of the characters is not built into the sandbox.

I did. I even responded to you with a description of my city-sandbox (here and elsewhere here, to @AbdulAlhazred). So far, no one has replied to those posts.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I wouldn’t call them coincidences. If you don’t climb a cliff fast enough, and an ally is therefore killed because you were not there to help… that’s a consequence, not a coincidence.

Do you see why this would bother people who think making decisions about how to spend time while traveling is an important part of the game?

Yes, of course.

As long as you can see how focusing on every moment and every bit of tedium would bother people who want to focus on more interesting matters.

Retcon =/= do in the moment. They will never be close to the same, no matter how often you repeat that they are not really that different.

But it’s not really a retcon. Retcons change something that’s been established, or somehow provide new context that changes how we perceive what we knew.

Skipping past a travel scene means we’ve not established what happened during the journey. Which leaves us free to determine if anything meaningful or interesting happened or not.

That is wrong. In one case you have a player declaring that they'd like their character to find herbs. In the other you have a player declaring that they'd like their character to have found herbs in the past, retconning the herbs.

I never said they were exactly the same. I disagreed with your statement that they were “two very different things”.

They’re not that different. Both involve a player asking for his character to find herbs. Both will likely involve a roll to see if the search succeeds.

That one asks “during” the journey and another asks “after” the journey is the key difference… but it’s not nearly as significant as you’re making it out to be.

The latter player could just as easily pick the city they were in 10 sessions ago, the town from 3 sessions ago, or say they ran into a peddler on the road. Retconning is radically different from doing in the moment.

I disagree, for the reasons stated above. First, it’s not really a retcon. Second, the player requests and the resolution of the request are largely the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That one asks “during” the journey and another asks “after” the journey is the key difference… but it’s not nearly as significant as you’re making it out to be.

Not nearly as significant to you.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really care how The Forge would define anything.

OK, so why did you ask me about it? And then yell at me when I answered your question?