D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
So, there are people who say that.
Therefore, you treat everyone as if they are saying that? That's gonna make things better?
At that point, it is probably time to close the thread. Shall I do that? It is like two clicks. We can end everyone's frustration sooo easily.
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
You left out the bit at the end where I already addressed this exact point.
To be fair, my current feelings about this whole discussion are probably heavily coloured by the position held by a single poster, and it may be I am unfairly projecting that poster's arguments on others who are presenting more nuanced perspectives.
As to closing the thread, that would be fine by me. As far as I can see, the discussion had already run its course a long time ago and no one (including me) has added anything of substance for quite some time.
Yeah, I don't know if that actually addresses/answers my question, but arguing it wont make things better, so I'll back off.
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
I assumed the question was rhetorical.
If you need a direct answer: Treating everyone as if they said a thing someone else said will not typically make anything better, especially if the "thing" is being treated as a negative.
Nope, I don't. I've realized it isn't a valuable line of discussion.
DinoInDisguise
A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.
I want to make sure I understand your point clearly; and would appreciate any further clarification.
You’re absolutely right that PbtA games, structurally, push for narrative motion on every roll. That’s baked into the move design, and it’s part of what makes them tick.
Even in more traditional systems, a GM prioritizing pacing and player engagement can, and should, approach rolls the same way. Given how human attention works, every GM really should aim to prioritize these factors.
We can look at the examples that pemerton spoke about in their reply (#10,103) to my post, together with what you brought up about lockpicking. We read;
In all of these examples, success is obvious. You get a reward. No issues there. Failure is more interesting, though.
If you roll and "nothing happens" you have a textbook case of stalling the game without consequence. The players are gambling for progress: they roll, hoping for a yes. If they fail? They either try again or move on. This is exactly what FrozenNorth's PF2 example (Post 10,080) was about. We read;
Rolls such as these are not a decision anymore, it’s just rolling dice until the numbers say you win. Without a real consequence, like loss of time that matters, noise attracting danger, or the lock becoming jammed, there’s no real reason for the roll to happen at all. Give the success and avoid the issue.
If you want the chance of failure, have it mean something. Prevent a retry. Give a clue or distraction. Do something besides just saying; "nothing happens." PbtA enforces this by design, but traditional games are better when they include it. And they are better because they waste less time.
Finally, I have issues with the bold part. It makes a leap I’m not sure is supported. I think players generally want meaningful outcomes, which PbtA delivers structurally. Failure that changes nothing, however, feels anticlimactic and frustrating.
We can demonstrate this with a thought experiment. Think about playing in a game where you have no interest in the outcome of the rolls you make.
That sounds absurd, but if you’re rolling dice and the result doesn’t matter, nothing changes, that quickly becomes disengaging. It’s not about whether the system is narrative or traditional; it’s about whether rolls carry narrative or mechanical weight. Most players want to feel like their choices matter and their failures mean something.
PbtA builds that in structurally, sure — but the desire it addresses is near-universal. That desire is to stop wasting player's time.
TLDR: GM advice: Stop wasting time. Give players a reason to care, or skip the roll.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Whereas I feel there's nothing wrong with a GM whose fun in the hobby comes from something more than doing whatever my players want. I'm happy that works well for you, but to me that sounds more like being an employee than I am comfortable with in a leisure activity.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Sure, as long as you're enjoying the play. GMs get to have fun too, and they shouldn't IMO have to get that exclusively from fulfilling the wants of others.
Similar Threads
