Faolyn
(she/her)
I hardly think having something interesting happen instead of having nothing happen is making reality bend over backwards.
D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
hawkeyefan
Legend
So I just wanted to snip this bit out because I think it’s very relevant. First, I want to say that I understand your reasoning on this, and even if I didn’t, it’s a preference and like any preference, you’re entitled to have it.
But there aren’t any RPGs that work the way the real world works. Even when a GM is doing nothing but considering all the factors and weighing all the different aspects of a situation to make a decision… that’s not the way the real world works. What we’re talking about is still a participant in a game making a decision about what happens in play.
I get that it may feel closer to how the real world works to you or any given player. But that doesn’t change the fact that all RPGs consist of people making stuff up. None of them work the way the real world works.
There is no GM in the real world.
This maybe seems like a silly nitpick, but I think it’s a pretty significant part of the outlooks that are at play which causes conflict when discussing.
Well, I for one like to talk about how a given game might be well-suited for a particular task… and how it is well-suited.
Honestly, I also think that sometimes the “sides” get so starkly drawn that people start assuming comparisons are being made even when that may not be the case.
I think Micah is possibly the one person here open and clear that his preferences are such that “hewing as close to fictional reality” is the ultimate priority of play over about all other considerations. I don’t understand it, but it’s what he wants - and all these posts coming from that perspective are more coherent to me.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
That would be nice, yes. One things both sides do IMO (most definitely including myself) is take issue with comments about how one doesn't understand the appeal of the particular playstyle someone prefers.
Thomas Shey
Legend
That's a valid position, but its not the same as "What single points of failure?" and acting like they're only a story-intensive game problem.
Thomas Shey
Legend
What part of my description implied "wandering around"? The whole point was they were doing the best they could to travel safely and it failed partly because of outside events.
Honestly, this comes across as a pretty disingenuous response to the scenario I presented.
No. It required one decision, prompted by an event they had no control over, and a single failed roll. People are going to travel; acting like that was an odd decision and unsafe is kind of off here.
Again, the thought they were taking it seriously; they had a path and a map. In that situation when a big storm breaks out you have a bad set of choices, but it isn't something you can always account for.
Remember, my comment wasn't about fail forward per se; it was that single points of failure can be a problem well outside story-focused games. Fail forward is just one tool to address this, but its absolutely a thing people need to think about, one way or another.
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
Yes, we discussed this to death a few thousand posts ago. No one's imaginary gameworld is an accurate and comprehensive simulation with anything resembling the fidelity of our day-to-day lives in the real world. Anything we discuss is about how we elicit a particular set of feelings, what things we're are able to rationalise, what our individual limits are for suspension of disbelief etc.
I would like to hope this is a settled and agreed point by now.
Well, yes. This is why I was specifically commenting about how the system made me feel, not how well it objectively simulates the real world (which I note you did acknowledge; I'm not suggesting you're now arguing I did otherwise).
Again, I'd like to think that all goes without saying, and I'm not sure it should be leading to any disagreements. In any case, if it does needs saying, I certainly agree.
Thomas Shey
Legend
He usually strikes me as one of the most coherent arguments in this thread; I just think (and we've interacted enough in the past I think I can say this without being kneejerk) that when he becomes annoyed he sometimes jumps at the bit on elements he doesn't need to, because some other participants are being dismissive (which I've taken at least one of them to task for in this thread).
Thomas Shey
Legend
Well, of course, sometime people on different sides do that because it doesn't appear other people do understand it, and worse, don't seem to want to. Its just that at some point when that's going on, you need to accept that further useful conversation is no longer possible. I just cut off a conversation in another thread because of that.
But repeating it is probably not useful, and as you note, tends to light people up.
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
Your scenario appears, to me, to be:
A group of seasoned, skilled outdoor survivalists are travelling in the wilderness. They lose their map and, because the map is lost, are now out of options and their survival is going to come down to dumb luck or desperate hail marys. Can they not judge directions? Does no one have any idea where they've come from? Are there no landmarks anywhere? Are they incapable of foraging or hunting for food? How have they suddenly gone from "fine" to "all is lost, there's no way out"?
Outside events might make things harder, but a single event isn't typically going to make things impossible. If it's one event after another, but the group keeps pressing forward, again and again, refusing to turn back, until eventually it's too late, then that's not outside events, it's is either foolishness or it's an assumption by the players that the GM is going to bail them out or not let things get that bad. If it's the latter, and those assumptions are wrong, that's a communication problem, not a system problem.
If it's some extreme example, where they're crossing an icy tundra known for week long blizzards that kill even the most experienced native experts, well, either that description of the region means something, and you are genuinely risking death if you choose to set out, or it doesn't, in which case sure, you can use any one of a number of methods to make sure it doesn't happen. If it's not really meant to be deadly to the PCs, then the easy fixes are to either not put them in the deadly blizzard, or make sure it ends before they're out of meaningful options. But either way, I don't really see how you "accidentally" end in a position where no one has any option. And again, if it is just a mistake by the GM (oh, this weather chart was a bad idea, I didn't intend for this outcome that no one will enjoy), then just say so. No need to be coy about it.
But I genuinely struggle to see how a "no way out, except based on this single binary roll" situation can just sneak up on everyone with no meaningful opportunity to prevent it by any of the participants -- it it happens, it's something everyone has embraced and accepted as an outcome they're willing to live with.
Edit: And, if you still think I'm being disingenuous, there must be something one of us is saying that the other is just not grasping, because I'm definitely not trying to be intentionally obtuse here, or to misrepresent your scenario.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
