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

SableWyvern said:

If I had made a boo-boo and included a trap that can result in a TPK, in a game where a trap causing a TPK was not an acceptable outcome, I still wouldn't implement fail forward to fix it.

I would instead say, "Hey, guys, I didn't think this trap through and it shouldn't have worked this way. Assuming we're not all happy with just saying everyone dies in the pit, lets recon this a bit. Sorry about that."

I don't need to implement a new dice mechanic to fudge my way out of the situation, I'd just own up and be clear about what happened. [Note: using fail forward in a game where fail forward is already an established part of play would not, IMO, count as fudging. Using it to fix a problem when it's not a normal and agreed part of play would, IMO. I'd rather just admit my mistake and fix it, than pretend it's the dice doing it.]

Edit to add: And perhaps this actually goes back to the crux of the ongoing disagreement. I don't need a formal mechanic or rule to fall back on to fix the problem, because my wide-ranging and mostly unlimited GM powers already include the ability to just say, "Hey guys, I messed up, let sort this out."

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

Yeah. Having a single point of failure suggests more direct storytelling than happens in my game anyway.

Click to expand...

Campbell said:

It's not putting the rules over the fiction and is still very much constrained by the shared fiction (what has been established). Both the rules and not yet defined elements of the setting are serving the game's agenda. So, in a game like Monsterhearts that's keeping focus on these teenage monsters who are unsure of themselves, have this personal darkness they are dealing with and feelings they're not sure about, etc. It's choosing complications that speak to the premise of the individual characters.

Nothing about this is because it's what the rules say. It's because we're playing a game where we want to focus on the character's struggles and see who they are coming out the other end.

The way Monsterhearts structures the conversation is not important because it's the rules. It's important because it's the foundation of this thing we are doing because we need the GM to frame these scenes so our characters can be tested. In the same way that D&D requires the DM to describe the dungeon environment so it can be explored.

One is not more rules bound than the other. The roles are different because the play is different.

Click to expand...

DinoInDisguise said:

I loved Euchre in college. It's a great little card game with a deceptive amount of depth. Maybe there's something with 5e being Euchre. And funnily enough, I never got into Poker or Dungeon World. Strange that the analogy worked out that way.

I'm pretty pliable. @EzekielRaiden taught me that I was wrong about how I perceived the balance between GM and player. @Micah Sweet and @AlViking taught me, in this very thread, how not everyone values the "game" side as much as I do, in our discussions about consequences to rolls.

Maybe, over time — through discussions like this one, and from people showing me the beauty of Narrativist systems — I’ll come to see what I’m missing. But right now, I don’t feel like I need a system that shapes my play or imposes a distinct rhythm. When it does, it feels like it’s pulling me out of a flow I already know, enjoy, and trust.

Still, I’m genuinely blown away by the passion of you and others for that style of game. You all inspire me to go and seek out a Dungeon World game, not because it looks interesting on it's face, but because I see so many speak so highly of it.

So ask me in a few months how I feel. Maybe, like the others I mentioned, you’ll end up helping me change my mind.

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

That depends on the GM.

Also the edition. Two of the above spells don't exist in 5e, for example. It's also possible that the casters didn't prepare the "right" spell, which is entirely unfair of the GM to think, because the character only has so many spell slots and they can't prepare everything they might need.

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

I think you're missing the point here, or looking at it too narrowly. The point is, part of the adventure is gatekeeped (gatekept?) behind a die roll. It could be a door, but it could be anything else. A wall that the party fails to climb, a chasm they can't cross, a puzzle they can't solve, anything like that. Failure here stops the players from progressing and ends up being a boring waste of time.

If the party can't get through the door, then what has happened? Have they expended resources? Is it likely that they'll be found out or their quarry has escaped in the time they took? If the only thing that happens is that the players have wasted their time, then the entire encounter was a waste of time. Nothing was accomplished and nothing interesting happened on the failure, other than the party can't continue.

Click to expand...

AlViking said:

First, I didn't say my impression applied to all games. Second, I would find MH restrictive because the game has told you what you're going to be and what your goals are. I also don't want something like character development forced on me as a goal.

There is nothing wrong with that (and not in a Seinfeld way), we just want different things.

Click to expand...

Campbell said:

Not suggesting we should want the things. I'm just disagreeing with the rules bound stuff that I feel does not describe what we do when we play Monsterhearts at all.

Click to expand...

Lanefan said:

5e took out Warp Wood? Druid spell?

And indeed, it's possible they don't have the correct resources. Again, so be it - go back and get 'em.

Click to expand...

Lanefan said:

The whole point of an obstacle is to slow or prevent progress. Unlike modern game design, I don't want to ignore or toss out the "or prevent" piece; I agree using it all the time is overkill, but every now and then it should rear its ugly head.

Sometimes they just can't do what they came here to do; or, for whatever reason can't do it yet but maybe can if they come back next year with a few more levels and a lot more resouces under their belt.

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

Real life is often boring, frustrating, or all-around awful, none of which are good things for a game. If the players are actually enjoying roleplaying through failing to do a thing, then that's one thing, but if they're doing it because they have no other choice, that's another thing.

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

That depends on the GM.

Also the edition. Two of the above spells don't exist in 5e, for example. It's also possible that the casters didn't prepare the "right" spell, which is entirely unfair of the GM to think, because the character only has so many spell slots and they can't prepare everything they might need.


I think you're missing the point here, or looking at it too narrowly. The point is, part of the adventure is gatekeeped (gatekept?) behind a die roll. It could be a door, but it could be anything else. A wall that the party fails to climb, a chasm they can't cross, a puzzle they can't solve, anything like that. Failure here stops the players from progressing and ends up being a boring waste of time.

If the party can't get through the door, then what has happened? Have they expended resources? Is it likely that they'll be found out or their quarry has escaped in the time they took? If the only thing that happens is that the players have wasted their time, then the entire encounter was a waste of time. Nothing was accomplished and nothing interesting happened on the failure, other than the party can't continue.

Click to expand...