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

[pemerton]

You're talking about The Forge as if the definitions they used still have great significance that we all agree on. We don't. People didn't agree 20 years ago on the definitions and they still don't.

As I posted, why do I care how some random website defines "fail forward" when I know how the actual RPG invented by one of those who actually introduced the concept - namely, Luke Crane's RPG Burning Wheel - works?

I've posted lots of examples of BW play in this thread, including as illustrations of how "fail forward" works.

But you seem to think that I will care more about what the website you've linked to says. I don't understand why.

 

[pemerton]

And? Yes, individuals act on their initiative. I know how the process works, I just don't have an issue with it and there is no "going back in time". It's a simplified abstraction like everything else in the game. Don't like it? Play a different game.

Why can B not shoot A on B's turn, even though A hasn't yet shut the door?

 

[Eric V]

You act as if no one's ever fallen off a cliff to their death before. Why should that never happen?

...are you being serious?

 

[Lanefan]

Is the task at hand climbing the cliff, or is it saving the friend at the top of the cliff? Because if the important thing in this scene is the friend, then that's what's being rolled for.

The important thing in the scene might be saving your friend but there's a major obstacle en route to arriving at said scene, namely the cliff you have to climb.

Get past the cliff first, then we'll resolve what becomes of your friend.

But if the task truly is just climbing the cliff, then a truly bad roll (say, a critical failure in D&D) could be a complete failure to do so--along with a logical injury from falling part of the way--but a lesser failure could be that they get there, but it takes a really long time, they lose their supplies, the rope breaks so their compatriots can't follow unless the climber has a spare on them, they get injured on the way, or anything similar.

Those are all valid as lesser successes. None of them are actual failures, however - the climber succeeded in the task of reaching the top - which means each one invalidates the 'fail' roll that was just made.

If both things are equally important, than they would be resolved separately. But if the cliff is really just a prelude to saving the friend, then it's just an obstacle.

Obviously it's just an obstacle! But it's an obstacle that has to first be overcome before anything else can happen at the top.

 

[Lanefan]

For sure. Some players like it when their characters fail a climbing check and then fall to their deaths.

They don't have to like it. They just have to accept it as a possible consequence of failing in their attempt.

 

[Lanefan]

Where are you getting that? If A kills B, B does not suddenly pop back to life to get a chance to kill A first. Admittedly rounds and initiatives will always be an ugly compromise but there is no going back in time. There is no good system that I've seen for resolving simultaneous actions with the relative simplicity of initiative and turn based combat.

Turn-based combat without allowance for tied initiatives is the problem here.

Our initiative system allows for simultaneous actions and it works well enough. A could kill B at the same time B kills A, which is impossible with WotC-style turn-based combat.

 

[The Firebird]

Why can B not shoot A on B's turn, even though A hasn't yet shut the door?

A won initiative, which means in the fiction they are acting more rapidly. They may have gotten their shot off and shut the door before B could react.

If B had won initiative they could have readied an action and shot A.

 

[The Firebird]

Our initiative system allows for simultaneous actions and it works well enough. A could kill B at the same time B kills A, which is impossible with WotC-style turn-based combat.

I use this too.

 

[Lanefan]

Let me restate my point, then:

The 2024 rules tell players to declare actions for their PCs having regard to the social desirability of going along with the GM's adventure. (There is even a heading about "social contract".)

I think that is an interesting thing.

Indeed.

Interesting, and also very sad: the rules are actively encouraging the players to metagame.

 

[pemerton]

A won initiative, which means in the fiction they are acting more rapidly. They may have gotten their shot off and shut the door before B could react.

But then why is A frozen in inaction while B performs exactly the same amount of action as A performed?