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

[Thomas Shey]

There's that 100% realism strawman! Haven't seen him in a while.

Consideration does not equal action.

I'm just saying that its obvious you're excluding some things, and honestly, I seriously doubt you even consider the ones off the probability line, because no one does. As I said, under normal circumstances with a prepared climb the chance to fall to one's death is below that probability set (best numbers you can find are a rate less than one in ten thousand (if you exclude non-trauma based deaths) and that's for extended climbs that would probably involve more than one roll in most systems, and that's well below what even a fumble + fail result would produce).

This doesn't mean there couldn't be exceptions where someone is, say, free climbing while under arrow fire or completely incompetent as a climber, but ignoring the risk of lethal falls completely is probably a less unrealistic result than using an overly simple way of deciding it given the probability range in most systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do you think WotC had to in this case? If so, why haven't they done so with all their previous PHs?

It was a more general point, though I think there's very few combat systems of any detail that don't produce some degree of that. Its probably possible to avoid it there with a detailed system, but it would likely have to be super-fussy in time management and other elements.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Why would you assume hunting and foraging in a game where food and water can be created and rations purchased. Those things are not automatic when traveling.

They probably light a fire. Is that extra?

I already answered this.

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.

It is a Red Herring because "pretending" is a distraction away from the real point, which is timing.

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.

Nawp! Didn't happen. This is what I 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."

Note how there's no problem mentioned there. Just an indication that you can't do what we can, because you didn't do how we did. All you can do is retcon in herbs later in one of thousands of ways.

You replied...

"Player: Hey… can I have gathered herbs while we were traveling from Luskan to Neverwinter?
GM: Sure, you’d have had plenty of time, let’s roll to see how it went.

Problem solved."

Not actually doing what we did, and then try to make it a problem when it wasn't one in the first place. It was just different.

Then I said...

"Except that didn't solve it. I already covered why what you do can't be the same as what we do. We still will have done more."

Which in the context of the above discussion is about you failing to do what we did, which is find herbs in the moment. Your "solution" did not accomplish finding it in the moment, because it couldn't. It still wasn't about a "problem," because there was no problem in the first place.

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”.

And you are still wrong. Searching in real time and setting the fiction in stone is FAR different from reconning things later to add in having searched for herbs, or bought herbs, or had a fairy drop off herbs, or saw herbs on the head of a passing cow, or... in the past.

 

[AlViking]

IIRC, the original idea for this is that you had to climb the cliff to save the friend.

If the friend is just waiting at the top of the cliff, then no, failure wouldn't result in their death.

Going from memory it stated nothing about the goal of climbing the cliff. It was that you climb the cliff, the friend is dead because you failed your check and while you succeed at the climb there has to be a cost. It's why I looked for other examples (Failing Forward – RPG Concepts) that explain it with more detail than we get on a forum post. In the example I found it was failing to pick a lock so you still get in but there's a quantum cook who screams for help. The cook only exists because you failed to pick the lock. Of course I was then told that it was "Just a random web site" and not The Forge*.

If I were running a D&D game and the characters hit the unable to pick the lock scenario there are multiple ways to handle it. In my game unless they really blow it (fail by 10 or more) they can still get the lock open, it's just going to take a while. At that point they can decide if they want to risk a patrol coming along, attempt to find a different entrance, give up on getting into this particular door, break the door down, something else like have the druid turn into a small spider and crawl in and open it from the inside. If they decide to break down the door that could alert someone in the building or in an adjacent building which could lead to complications but that's only if someone was there in the first place. There will never be a quantum cook even if I think it would make for more tension and excitement.

* The Forge was shut down 20 years ago, I have never been able to find significant documentation on what it said. If there's a repository somewhere you'd think someone could provide it. Even then I know that the definitions were always controversial.

 

[AlViking]

You're taking that passage a bit out of context.

There's a house that the PC is sneaking into. You, as the GM, have an idea of who or what should be in that house, even if you didn't establish a list of inhabitants beforehand. So if the PC fails and startles someone, it's someone who you would consider a logical resident of that house. It's not that a cook materializes out of nowhere; it's that you have decided that sure, it's logical that this house has a cook.

It's no different than if the PC goes into a bar and wants to know if there's a barmaid. Did you actually figure out every single employee of that location? Maybe, but probably not. If you hadn't, would you say "there's no barmaid here" or would you say "sure" and grab a random name generator? Does that count as a quantum barmaid to you, simply because you hadn't established ahead of time?

To me, the ability to say "sure, there's a barmaid" or "you startle a cook" is the type of improvisational thinking that GMs are supposed to do when players do things that the GM didn't expect.

Read the entire blog post. There was no indication the cook exists unless you fail the roll. Failing Forward – RPG Concepts

edit - if the cook was always there, they still would have screamed for help even if the pick lock was successful. I just think there are better ways to handle it as I stated above.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I see. The sequence of posts from @Thomas Shey 's #10,545 through your #10,670 makes it appear connected. So I'm surprised to learn that your design-related criticism has no connection to the simple fail versus fail-forward debate in the chain that preceded it. If it's got nothing to do with that then I misread. What I said stands in relation to fail-forward.

Just to be clear, almost all my posts on this subject have been about single-points-of-failure, not fail-forward per se. As I noted, I'm agnostic whether fail-forward is always the way to address those.

 

[pemerton]

I was then told that it was "Just a random web site" and not The Forge*.

Actually, I referred you to the rules for Burning Wheel. Which have been cited and discussed at great length in this thread. Including in some posts replying to you.

You can download the relevant rules for free: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/98542/burning-wheel-gold-hub-and-spokes

 

[Maxperson]

An example of fail forward from Failing Forward – RPG Concepts for failing to pick a lock.

"Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost. So you get into the house, but you startle a cook who screams. Now your plan of sneaking around the house slowly and avoiding all the guards is shot. You’re in the house, so you better use your opportunity, but this is going to be more of a smash and grab than a cat burglary."

Did the cook exist before the failure? No. It's a quantum cook that only comes into existence because the roll failed. I would not like that kind of game. In the style of game I want to play the cook was there whether or not picking the lock was successful.

There are different approaches, fail forward is just one I do not care for even if it works for other games and players.

Fail forward does not have to lead to success at the task in some manner. It just means that failure will still result in the story moving forward by not leaving the situation the same as before you started. Which is actually impossible since in your example the situation was door at house that we never tried to open, and afterwards was door at the house that we tried to open and failed. That moves the story forward incrementally.

A more accurate definition would be "that failure will still result in the story moving forward in a way the players of that style find interesting, by not leaving the situation the same as before you started."

 

[FrogReaver]

@clearstream
But also for others,

I very much like your perspective on the contrast between scenarios and what is gameful in each.

One thing you’ve got me thinking about is the sheer number of rolls involved using a fail forward resolution system.

If players aren’t told of the potential consequence beforehand then this seems extremely similar to any other play with hidden resolution information.

Thus, in many such systems players are told what the consequences will be before they roll.

(a particularly loss averse player may drive the game to a halt at that point by asking about 1,000 different moves in an attempt to find the one with his most preferred potential consequence and highest odds for success - but this is more aside my point for now but maybe interesting on its own. I guess the question here would be do social pressures or game principles prevent the player from doing this and if so does the player really have full information regarding the scenario and their potential actions? But really this is more of an aside).

Anyways, players are told the consequences of their action for a single roll, but those consequences usually push toward another roll and those toward another. For any given chain of rolls there’s a dependency chain there. As such, are the players ever truly informed of the consequences of their actions, if they only are told the immediate mechanical ramifications at the moment of the action and not any of the downstream dependencies?

And for a second thought, doesn’t the sheer number of rolls and weight toward success with complication mean that nearly any consequence can be on the table at nearly any time? And with so many rolls and so much on the table for each roll, where is the gamefulness in that?

 

[AlViking]

I don't understand what you're talking about here. Are you and @AlViking the same person? If not, why are you responding to my posts to AlViking as if they're directed at you?

EDIT: Here is a post where you seem to take some random website more seriously than the actual designers and players of the games which pioneered "fail forward":
As I've already posted, I don't regard that website as having any authority. I know what Luke Crane was trying to achieve via "fail forward", because I've read and played the RPG that gives effect to the idea.

I've posted examples of the play of that game in this thread, but you and others seem to think that some random webiste is a better indication of what Luke Crane had in mind then the rulebooks he wrote and actual examples of play that follows those rules.

If you have a different web site that explains it better please provide it. If you can show text where Mr. Crane gave a clear example even better. I have searched for documentation on what he said, I can't find it. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy for a reason, an appeal to an authority that no one else can find doubly so.