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

[Eric V]

You don’t get to make that determination for them.

The words "Dungeons and Dragons" are right there on the covers.

 

[FrogReaver]

The words "Dungeons and Dragons" are right there on the covers.

Yes and so obviously that’s not what they mean by ‘real d&d’

 

[Eric V]

Yes and so obviously that’s not what they mean by ‘real d&d’

It's not complicated.

Only WotC can make real D&D. And they did so, putting out 4e.

Some people tried it and said "This does feel like D&D to me." That's their perception. What else could it be?

Hence, the accuracy of my comment above.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Tuovinen describes that separation this way in the blog post linked above; I find their description compelling but that's just my personal opinion.

The problem with that is his statement could be reframed as "Anything can be a hammer if you hit things with it." Genre emulation is not only not the same thing as world simulation, in some respects they're actively hostile to each other (which doesn't mean someone dedicated can't possibly pull the two pieces of rope together, but it requires active work).

 

[Faolyn]

To my mind, “telling a story” is how I’d describe the orientation of a session of Fiasco, or playing through a metaplot-heavy module of Vampire or other old-school White Wolf. There’s a focus on playing through a series of scenes to get a desired “narrative endpoint”.

What something like BW or AW or Stonetop shares with classic/trad D&D is the idea that we’re playing to see how one interaction flows into the next, and we can only really “reconstruct” a story by relaying the events after they’re finished. Both type of games emphasize not starting with the ending in mind.

Whereas I'd say you're telling a story as you go along with any of those games. You don't need to look back to see what the story "was about" because it's not (necessarily) a story with a plot. It's a slice-of-life. Just usually with more violence than is typical in a slice of life.

 

[Enrahim]

Then I'm back to not knowing what RPG you have in mind as using "weird entanglement".

I don't have any specific RPG in mind. However it seem like any system with fail with consequences and poor GM guidance would be susceptible.

The screaming cook doesn't exhibit "weird entanglement". Setting aside many of the aspects that have been discussed (eg the plausibility of the cook being present, whether the hard move follows deftly from a soft move, etc), the basic structure is straightforward: the player fails their roll, and as a result the GM frames them into an unwanted encounter.

In order for weird entanglement to be present and a problem the following 2 premises seem to have to be in place:

1: The GM has come up with a consequence that in no way can be explained as a consequence of the attempted action in fiction
2: The player is somehow aware of what would have happened on a pure success, and that is not consistent with the consequence.

That this could be a possible scenario trough dubious GM-ing alongside metatalk I think should be apparent? However these are both so easily avoided that I would hope the entire example is mostly academic.

However as an academic example it appear to be interesting, as it has revealed a real divide in the level of desirability of this hypothetical. This divide seem to be of a sort that is conductive to communicate about issues that is more broadly relevant, thanks to this example bringing it into relief.

So the in fiction part of premise 1 is the critical part. It is true that if you expand your view to include the player, the causal link is obvious. To explain the in-fiction projection of this situation imagine this piece of fiction:
"The lock is no match for Enrahim. After a few seconds the lock was no barrier to entry. However lockpicking had never been Enrahim's big interest. Had he just practised the art of the mundane tools rather than indulged in his facination for magical trinkets he would have found the kitchen empty and ready for picking. As it was there was the Cook, in the middle of preparing breakfast."
Anything here that would have made you make a double take if you read it in a novel?

And the really interesting thing is that for some this doesn't appear to be an issue at all during play; but for others this is a game breaker. Moreover those that don't have a problem with it doesn't appear to understand what the problem could possibly be, while those that see this as a huge problem struggle to formulate why this would be a problem for them. This is the gap I tried to bridge with my post.

Me? I don't see myself playing with the mindset required for it to be a problem. I think the inherent problem is a break of expectations that I think is reasonable, but that isn't needed for the kind of play I am looking for.

This is even a thing in D&D: for instance, it is the narration of the final failure in the example skill challenge in the 4e Rules Compendium.

In that example we are not even looking at quantum. The counterfactial was given, and there are no indication the half orc and the thug would't be there in that case. Rather the encounter would have been possible to avoid due to remembering the rumors of the hidden entrance (always there no matter the result) and hence having the possibility to dash for that before the Half-Orc could come out and challenge them. If anything there is some pacing going on here with the DM skipping straight to the assumed interesting action - but pacing devices is a completely different matter entirely?

I've reread you r posts, but haven't worked out what the concerns are that are in conflict. One concern is for the independence of the fiction. What's the other?

This is the snippet you quoted the message before:

My theory about those with a more narrativistic tendensy is that they prioritise the experience gotten from the fiction resonating with their emotional system, and are as such more accepting to occasionally have to "suspend disbelief" in order to acheive this.

So the concerns would have been
1: the passive positive feeling from the fictional world behaving as our sub-conscious prediction system would expect,
and 2: achieving states in the fiction that resonates emotionally.
However i have abandoned this position now, ref D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

Anyway, consider this example:
What makes the fiction feel independent to the player? That it is not under their control - eg it is the GM who tells the player that someone is coming; and then, when the player has their PC enter the storeroom, that Pattycakes is a separate being, whose responses are not under the player's control.

I am so sorry, I do not manage to parse your question, and need to put my children to bed. I will try to get back to this and make a new attempt at parsing it if you have not clarified in the meantime

 

[TwoSix]

The problem with that is his statement could be reframed as "Anything can be a hammer if you hit things with it." Genre emulation is not only not the same thing as world simulation, in some respects they're actively hostile to each other (which doesn't mean someone dedicated can't possibly pull the two pieces of rope together, but it requires active work).

Sure, but the article does tease them apart as being distinct techniques. They simply both fall under the umbrella of Simulationism, which has a host of various techniques under it, just as Gamism and Narrativism do.

It's certainly difficult to do genre emulation and world simulation at the same time (not without weakening both to the point of making one or the other now worth the bother); it's even difficult to do them with the same system.

But the blog post is definitely not saying that they're both the same thing despite both being part of the Sim creative agenda, no more than we would assert a mouse and a whale are the same despite both being mammals.

 

[TwoSix]

Whereas I'd say you're telling a story as you go along with any of those games. You don't need to look back to see what the story "was about" because it's not (necessarily) a story with a plot. It's a slice-of-life. Just usually with more violence than is typical in a slice of life.

Yea, I have a very different view, such as I don't think there's an obvious compromise. A game oriented around delivering a planned final outcome (like an AP) is very distinct from a "play to see what happens" type of game.

Now, obviously you don't know for sure what's going to happen in an AP (the party might TPK, or might go through certain sections in a non-obvious fashion), but the output can generally be framed in reference or relation to an expected outcome (usually save the day and beat the final bad guy).

 

[AlViking]

This is a fair question to ask.


I would need to know more context about that Secret Door. i.e. did the party know or heavily suspect it was there and that is why they kept searching for an entire day? Because if not, then that is just a trash idea IMO and not at all immersive or makes sense narrative wise.
Like would a party sit and look for a door a whole day when they do not know it exists.
If
(i) they did know; and
(i) they need to find this door for the adventure to continue; and
(ii) they're racing against time, have them take 10 (+10 minutes) and add a further complication or cost of the success.
But a full day? No thank you.

Yes they knew it was there and had to find it in order to achieve their goal. So in my game, let's say they want to find papers that will implicate a noble of a crime. They do some investigation and find out that the noble is on a diplomatic trip and there will be minimal staff on site for the next couple of days. They go to break into the noble's house and the rogue fails the sleight of hand to open the lock by a few points. At this I would tell the rogue they can continue the attempt but it will take time, up to 20 minutes (2d10 for my house rule), do they want to try?

For me that's better than just roll until you get it, but it does leave them exposed for 20 minutes. They don't have to do that either, they could look for another way in.

Having a timer is one thing, but for me (and probably my table) there are far more interesting stakes than having to keep going back to time and RE. Do not get me wrong, I use time as a constraint, but it would feel repetitive to continuously use that. Fail Forward allows one to mix it up.
And like you said there are many variations of Fail Forward/Success at a Cost.
@EzekielRaiden's example upthread was also pretty neat.

You have to keep in mind my table is also high level, so 5 minutes here and there is pointless tracking for high level characters.
Most of the time they just should auto succeed at their tasks, but the times they roll and fail, I would imagine, it would be due to dumb luck and that works well with Success at a Cost.

EDIT: I tend to lean Fail Forward for homebrew/impromptu content (character driven) to keep the adventure/story flowing in those areas and then for the sections in our campaign that are AP driven I tend to have player facing mechanics to limit my bias.

It's just one example of what I would consider a logical outcome of a failed check. Other scenarios would have different options. For example fail to climb a wall may not mean any HP damage (or it might) but you may also make a lot of noise as you fall alerting nearby guards. The difference is that the guards will always be there regardless of the climb check and could have been alerted in other ways as well.

I feel the bold is very understated.
We have already hashed that debate here with no, IMO, honest look at how much just the setting IS the story or at the very least a major part of the story.

I'm not worried about a narrative or even telling a story. Just my approach, I know it's not the only one.

The reason to use fail forward to me is so that the ongoing gameplay doesn't come to a screaming halt because of a single failed roll. Thing is though that other games have very different approaches to what they're trying to achieve and how. There's also a pretty big difference in how often checks are called for in D&D from one group to the next. There are many sessions when we barely touch the dice in my game and then in the next session we're rolling all the time. If it's the dice heavy session adding in complications on a regular basis would slow the game down, the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. I just think there are better ways when I'm running a game to keep it going. Multiple options to achieve goals, multiple options and so on.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Who are these people, exactly, and why you are assuming they're sitting at a table with @FrogReaver while he participates in this game, and being subjected to this horrible experience?

Because I strongly suspect they exist only in your imagination, and there is no need for you to protect them from the depredations of @FrogReaver's playstyle.

Well. I can't say I come to the table with them.

But they aren't just talking about their table. They're talking about the game's design. Something that everyone who plays it will get saddled with.