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

[Faolyn]

Except when nothing is in fact something.

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

That's not nothing, though. That was a success on a roll, not a failure. The failure would have been the kaboom, which is something.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A roll for climbing is called for when I DM if and only if failure costs time and there is some predefined time pressure, failure means falling and taking damage, or some combination of the two.

Then I’m not following at all why you have an issue with what we’re talking about. If there is a predefined time pressure… it could be your friend in danger or anything else… then why would a consequence of a failed roll being related to the time pressure seem unconnected to you?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

...since when do stakes matter for this?

The one and only reason I argued against Lanefan's original statement was because it did expect players to consistently roleplay each and every shop encounter, every single time, with each and every instance requiring the players to opt out of doing so. That the "default should be" every single scene roleplayed, unless the players opt out.

He has since completely changed that, so that it is instead always permitting the option if folks express interest (presumably this is a pretty low bar, as in, "if a player sounds interested, I respond in kind and whatever happens happens"), but not actually "defaulting" to always playing every such scene out every time. The players do need to opt in, but it's a very gentle kind of opting in. No hoops or difficult requirements. Indeed, players may not even realize they opted in unless carefully reflecting back on their behavior afterward.

That latter thing is quite reasonable and, as he said, means he and I are not actually very far apart on this. Of course, in my experience, many players lose interest in doing haggling over tiny things pretty quickly because neither I nor they have an infinite well of improvisational energy to suffuse into every character we dream up. If it's even slightly a "big" purchase though (which includes things like potions at alchemy shops or special-purpose gear or horses, not just fancy big-ticket items), often they like to see how that process plays out, and some of the time, something interesting comes of it--which means I'm fully happy to embrace that.

But that still means Lanefan changed from "the default should be" definitely playing through unless opting out, vs a default of always leaving the option open while only following through with it if someone expresses at least a little bit of interest first.

 

[AlViking]

Then I’m not following at all why you have an issue with what we’re talking about. If there is a predefined time pressure… it could be your friend in danger or anything else… then why would a consequence of a failed roll being related to the time pressure seem unconnected to you?

Because the example had no predefined time pressure. The example was "Because the character failed their climb check, something bad happened like their friend being dead at the top." The friend's death was contingent upon and depended upon the failed climb check. If the character had stayed at the bottom of the cliff and had instead played a friendly game of canasta, the friend would still be alive because the character did not fail a climb check.

The climb check success or failure in no ways causes the death of the friend unless it's being used as a meta-game club to retroactively apply a cost to a check.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Extra? I would always assume foraging over a long journey. Hunting, gathering what can be found, and so on. I mean, they make camp, right? They probably light a fire. Is that extra?

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.

It’s not a red herring. What you do and what I do is we pretend.

If there’s some kind of meaningful reason not to have allowed them to gather herbs, then I’d say that.

“Can I have gathered herbs on our journey?”

“No, leaving the road in the area is too dangerous given how fast you needed to get to Neverwinter.”

Again… I’m not saying to abandon common sense.

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.

Well, I described what I do and said “problem solved” and then you said “that didn’t really solve it”.

So yeah… that’s saying it’s still a problem. AKA problematic.

You aren't being told it doesn't work. You're being told that it's very different. The only thing about your posts that I said didn't work was your claim that your very different method was the same as what I do. It's not.

I didn’t say it was the same. I said that they’re not as different as you claim.

There are differences, for sure. But that doesn’t mean they are “two very different things”.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because the example had no predefined time pressure. The example was "Because the character failed their climb check, something bad happened like their friend being dead at the top." The friend's death was contingent upon and depended upon the failed climb check. If the character had stayed at the bottom of the cliff and had instead played a friendly game of canasta, the friend would still be alive because the character did not fail a climb check.

The climb check success or failure in no ways causes the death of the friend unless it's being used as a meta-game club to retroactively apply a cost to a check.

I don’t think that’s in any way what anyone was advocating for. I think you’ve misunderstood quite a bit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 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.



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.



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



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?

Whether of not they successfully climbed the wall.

 

[pemerton]

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

People are claiming, in the abstract and without any evidence adduced from actual play examples, that Burning Wheel - one of the original "fail forward" RPGs - will produce implausible coincidences.

So I posted an example of BW play to ask where this implausible coincidence is to be found.

The relevance strikes me as obvious: the claim is an empirical one, and I seem to be the only person actually brining forth any evidence.

 

[AlViking]

I don’t think that’s in any way what anyone was advocating for. I think you’ve misunderstood quite a bit.

It's what was defined as fail-forward. You succeed at the task but something bad happens.

 

[pemerton]

almost no game deviates heavily from forward facing causality with most moves/abilities.

Huh? The whole of D&D combat resolution ignores forward-facing causality. Person A does their 6 seconds worth of stuff. Then we go back in time and Person B does their 6 seconds of stuff. And so on, until everyone has had a go.