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

[Lanefan]

What you should realize is that "interesting" doesn't mean ZOMG EXCITING!!1!. It means "not nothing." Because nothing is, well, nothing.

Except when nothing is in fact something.

"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom."

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not nearly as significant to you.

No… I think anyone describing them as “two very different things” is exaggerating.

No, a player asking if his character can search for herbs “during” the journey and a player asking after the journey has “ended” aren’t something I’d call “two very different things”. They seem quite similar. The difference is in timing… and perhaps how much time is spent at the table on them.

I see that you find these bits tedious. But phrasing it as if that's objectively true does not help your case.

I think many likely do. It seems to me more a side effect of wanting things to “work like they do in the real world” that makes them actually want to spend time on tedious things.

Many people in this thread have even described them as such, pointing out that without such tedious bits, the exciting bits aren’t that exciting.

I don’t agree with that. It seems to me an argument for the boring.

The decision about how to spend time was considered unimportant and worth skipping until it came up. Not everyone considers it unimportant in that way.

That’s 100% fine. So is skipping time and not roleplaying out minor actions or interactions. Each is a preference.

All I’m doing is explaining why I have the preference that I have. I was told my preference doesn’t allow for my player to have his character search for herbs during a journey. I explained how it can support such a request. Now I’m being told that won’t work for everyone… but, so what? I don’t care if someone out there doesn’t like it… I simply said it could be done.

Would you agree with me if I told you that your methods “don’t work” just because they don’t match my preferences?

I very much doubt it.

I find nothing happens to be an interesting result. Where does that leave us?

Well, have a whole campaign where nothing happens and then tell us what’s interesting about it.

It's just a coincidence that the extra amount of time it takes is just long enough for your friend to be killed. And this coincidental timing just happens to occur every time I fail a check.

Right.

This is you imagining the GM has just introduced some unconnected thing to the fiction. But there’s no need for that. If your character is climbing a cliff and we care enough for it to involve a roll, there should be some consequence, no? So the GM would just use those details to come up with the consequence.

If there’s nothing at stake, then what is the roll meant to tell us?

 

[hawkeyefan]

The moment you narrate they've arrived safely at their destination you've also just established that nothing of any significant danger occurred during that journey, meaning that any retconning they want to do is now under the umbrella of that safety you already established.

This becomes highly - extremely highly, in fact - relevant if what they want to retcon might otherwise have any degree of risk attached; unless you're willing to overturn previously-established fiction, which I think we all pretty much agree is poor form.

It all just depends on what’s been established. There is no need to allow anything that could have resulted in an outcome that’s contrary to what we’ve seen.

What I advocated for was allowing a player to have had his character do something that’s perfectly likely to have happened during a journey that was elided at the table. Nothing needs to have changed, there’s no conflict… it works just fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In that case, you don't skip it, if everyone is cool with it. But what do you do if one PC spends an hour collecting herbs while the rest are twiddling their thumbs?

Those PCs get their turn to do something interesting to them later.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's still very different, because your player could pick any of thousands and thousands of different ways to add to the past. This not even close to being the same as doing it in the present.

Just because the end result looks very similar, does not make them largely the same. They aren't.

It still meets the definition of retcon, which just means that a new piece of information is added that changes the prior interpretation of an event. Prior, we traveled. After, we traveled and foraged for herbs. Adding in foraging for herbs alters what happened in the fiction, which was just travel.

Just travel?

No… the characters likely ate and slept and talked and did all manner of things along the way. That we skip it doesn’t mean they “didn’t happen”.

This is why I point out that this is a standard element of RPGs that everyone does to some extent. No one is RPGing in real time. So describing it as problematic in any way is wrong.

You don’t have to like it… but don’t frame it as radically different or problematic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It adds to the feeling that the world is a living, breathing place and exists beyond the PCs.

It may also provide a fun opportunity for roleplay.

 

[The Firebird]

That’s 100% fine. So is skipping time and not roleplaying out minor actions or interactions. Each is a preference.

Reasonable.

All I’m doing is explaining why I have the preference that I have. I was told my preference doesn’t allow for my player to have his character search for herbs during a journey. I explained how it can support such a request. Now I’m being told that won’t work for everyone… but, so what? I don’t care if someone out there doesn’t like it… I simply said it could be done.

Would you agree with me if I told you that your methods “don’t work” just because they don’t match my preferences?

I very much doubt it.

Maybe I've misunderstood but I've read the criticism as "that doesn't work for me". That is, people are saying it doesn't accomplish what they mean when they say "I want the players to decide how to spend travel time".

I agree that your method works for you.

Well, have a whole campaign where nothing happens and then tell us what’s interesting about it.

Not a good criticism imo because any campaign where the same thing happens every time is boring. This is actually the reason why people are criticizing fail forward--because if something must happen every time, things feel too similar.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe I've misunderstood but I've read the criticism as "that doesn't work for me". That is, people are saying it doesn't accomplish what they mean when they say "I want the players to decide how to spend travel time".

I agree that your method works for you.

Here’s what @Maxperson said:

You don't, because you can't. Oh, you can skip past walking somewhere, but you can't go off into the trees to look for herbs the way we can, because you didn't show up at the next place with herbs you got during the trip, or maybe failed to get. Same with haggling and many other details.

I then offered my solution to this “problem”. The solution I offered works for me and my players.

It seems to me that I’m being told it doesn’t work.

Not a good criticism imo because any campaign where the same thing happens every time is boring. This is actually the reason why people are criticizing fail forward--because if something must happen every time, things feel too similar.

Similar how? I think this is something that’s being expressed, but I’m just not grasping it. Why will “interesting things happen” make “things feel too similar”? Wouldn’t the interesting things happening be related to the events of play?

Aren’t interesting things happening in your game, too? How is it that you avoid this problem of “things feel too similar”?

 

[AlViking]

...

This is you imagining the GM has just introduced some unconnected thing to the fiction. But there’s no need for that. If your character is climbing a cliff and we care enough for it to involve a roll, there should be some consequence, no?

No.

So the GM would just use those details to come up with the consequence.

When it happens repeatedly that there are consequences to a failed roll other than that I failed the specific task I was attempting it doesn't work for me. You don't get to decide for me what I can or cannot imagine.

If there’s nothing at stake, then what is the roll meant to tell us?

What was at stake was whether I could climb the cliff. That's all. There may be some separate pressure that's unrelated. If there's no time pressure and no chance of damage if I fall or if it's so easy I can't fail then there's no need for a roll.

If there is a ticking clock the players will typically be aware of it before declaring any actions. If they know their friend is in imminent mortal danger and they could fail climbing a cliff, perhaps they'll use some limited resource or take a different approach.

But it's not even about this particular climb. It's that every single time the GM is using this tactic on a failed roll. It wouldn't work for me.

 

[Maxperson]

Just travel?

No… the characters likely ate and slept and talked and did all manner of things along the way. That we skip it doesn’t mean they “didn’t happen”.

That's part of typical travel, unlike foraging for herbs which is something extra.

This is why I point out that this is a standard element of RPGs that everyone does to some extent. No one is RPGing in real time. So describing it as problematic in any way is wrong.

This is a Red Herring. Real time is irrelevant. Happening in the moment is relevant here. What we do happens in the moment. What you do is effectively a retcon. They are in fact very different methods of play.

You don’t have to like it… but don’t frame it as radically different or problematic.

I never said problematic and in fact said very clearly that it was just a matter of preference and not better or worse. Don't mischaracterize what I said like that.