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

Lanefan said:

It's bending over backwards when

a) the "something interesting" is clearly contrived just for that purpose and otherwise makes no in-fiction sense, and-or
b) "interesting things" keep happening over and over again, far more often than random chance would dictate.

Click to expand...

But absolute zero-context "random chance"--which is what I assume you mean by "far more often than random chance would dictate"--almost never applies?

Adventurers are, by their nature, people in a dangerous, often foolhardy "profession", if it can even be called such. They are already, by their very nature, abnormal people. They are already, by their actions, doing things which skew probability WELL outside of the bell curve of anything one might call "normal" existence.

"Random chance" for an adventurer is like trying to play poker with a tarot deck. All of the probabilities will be wildly off, and you're going to occasionally get hands that don't even have any possible score under poker rules. The probability distribution simply is not the same as it would be for a villager. (Indeed, most people are gonna have different things! A town guard is gonna see a lot more violence than a typical farmer will; a traveling merchant is braving the roads, but only occasionally visiting settled places; a wizarding student probably doesn't see much violence, but sees a heck of a lot of magical weirdness; etc.)

Before you can assert what is "far more often than random chance would dictate", you have to actually KNOW what is likely vs unlikely, and that's genuinely something most of us cannot know even in principle until we actually get some data to reason from.

EzekielRaiden said:

Okay...but that's something we have already addressed. There are many ways to achieve that feeling. Doing a lot of conflict-neutral, low-stakes/no-stakes situations is far from the only way to do that. I should think there would be something more specific than the feeling the action generates? That is, "progress" (in any campaign, regardless of how sandbox-y or railroad-y it is) generally means that actions are being taken which achieve demonstrable and relevant results for the players. They can be bad results, e.g. because the players' plan was bad, or because the dice said so, or because they failed to account for all obstacles, or whatever else, but events occurred. Whether or not one likes events that produce progress of some kind, that is a feature of these events.

What is the feature you prize in these "conflict-neutral" events that contributes to this feeling? Because I know that not all such events are going to get attention. As noted, I don't expect anyone here to demand descriptions of how one eats and drinks or how one goes to the bathroom. Such things are, even for you, below the level of notice, but I don't understand what it is about the events above your threshold which contributes to this "ah, this is a world I am in" feeling. Conversely, I can point to what is in so-called "highlight" events, medium- to high-stakes events, conflict-embracing events that contributes to the feeling of good pacing; namely, "progress", actions which demonstrably result in the fictional state moving to a new state, and generally doing so in a timely and consistent manner.

If it is possible to say, what is in events which leave the fiction entirely unchanged, that contributes to the feeling like you are a character living in the setting? I can think of some ideas, but I don't think it's productive for me to speculate on them.

Click to expand...

The relevant feature for me is, to put it simply, character development. Wa-a-ay more of my characters' development comes through downtime and-or no-stakes events e.g. campfire chats or shopping trips than through high-stakes field adventuring, in large part because in high-stakes field adventuring the top-of-mind thoughts (with extremely rare exceptions) revolve around survival and-or mission completion rather than whether I should pay for my brother to enter mage school or whether I'm truly in love with Bob's character or not, etc.

EzekielRaiden said:

I just...

Okay? Like if you're going to tell me that you refuse to participate in further discussion, I can't really demand anything of you otherwise. But it's just profoundly confusing to be told that there will never be situations where the GM controls events, and then be told that actually the GM will not allow some events and will allow other events. I simply don't understand how those things are reconciled. I can't ask you to speak any more on it, but it comes across as directly contradictory while denying that there could ever be any possible way to interpret it as contradictory.

Click to expand...

If you would prefer to imagine me yelling at you for choosing to define something your own way, that's also OK. Go wild.

You have a really bad habit of getting upset with people who don't want to argue with you, and trying to cast them as bad people for it. It's really quite off-putting.

I've made it clear multiple times throughout this thread that I'm uninterested in arguing semantics.

That said, if you're confused, it may be because no one has said, "there will never be situations where the GM controls events". It's always possible someone did say such a thing, but I'd be a little surprised if anyone really believes the GM never controls an event that happens in game.

EzekielRaiden said:

Okay. That's still something which skips over a scene for pacing reasons though. Like...sure, you've evaded "fail forward". But you've done so in a way that concedes what the example of "fail forward" was aimed at, namely, cutting out pointless non-conflict events so the game can move onward. That's still picking some "conflict-neutral" events to gloss over without any attention paid to them.

Click to expand...

I was never arguing that fail forward is bad and should never be used. I made it clear some time ago what I was arguing against were two things specifically:

First, the assertion that it's a key tool that all GMs should learn and use, as if there are problems that can occur in any game that can only be fixed with fail forward (or that fail forward is always the best solution for them).

Second, the idea that if a game is being run without a fail forward mechanic, suddenly inserting the mechanic to get around an unexpected problem (as if to create the illusion that it was the mechanic and not GM fiat that just occurred) is somehow a better solution than just admitting a mistake was made and fixing that mistake with open communication.

The other point I was making, and which I was clear about in the same post was this:

There is a big difference in feel and mood between a game where the players know that if they don't take wilderness dangers seriously they might get lost and die, and one where they know that they can take any degree of risk and fail forward their way to some kind of successful outcome anyway. Neither is inherently better than the other; my point is simply that they're not equivalent and you can't just offer fail forward as a solution without recognising that you're changing the nature of the game.

EzekielRaiden said:

If that isn't conceding the fundamental point--that most people do in fact skip over "unimportant" scenes, because doing so specifically makes the experience of play better--then I don't know what you are saying.

Click to expand...

Nobody runs a game at 1:1 time during the session, all session, every session, not even the ACCURATE TIME RECORDS MUST BE KEPT fanatics who obsess over 1:1 time.

Everyone skips things all the time; I'm not sure how you would have reached the conclusion anyone was claiming otherwise.

Some people have said they would allow people to roleplay their time in the cell for as long as they players are enjoying doing so; no one has claimed everyone has to sit around contemplating the characters' poor decisions in real time until either all the PCs die of starvation, they come up with a plan, or the cell door is opened.

pemerton said:

Why don't Conan's enemies kill him when he is captured and imprisoned (in The Scarlet Citadel and The Hour of the Dragon and A Witch Shall Be Born)? Why is Frodo not killed when captured in LotR?

Click to expand...

Can't speak to Conan but in Frodo's case it's because his captors were, collectively, idiots.

Same is true of many a James Bond scenario - he gets captured but not killed, even though killing him makes the most sense in the fiction at the time; and that he isn't killed in those situations bugs me every damn time.

EzekielRaiden said:

But by that assertion, literally all possible events COULD, maybe, potentially, possibly, someday, have some kind of consequence that might be relevant. If we follow that maxim, that would mean we cannot ever elide out detail--ever. Literally everything, every breath, every drink, every morsel, every poop, every step needs to be precisely counted, otherwise we might forget something. You can't have the party merely retrace their steps--they have to actually go through the motions of walking through every room, step by step by step, because maybe, possibly, something could happen! You never know!

That standard is patently ridiculous. It leads to hypergeometric explosion, where every single nuance and detail needs five minutes' time spent nailing down everything. I simply cannot believe that you (nor, indeed, anyone) plays by such a standard.

There are plenty of things we presume occur without explicitly calling them out. You do it. I do it. Everyone does it. It is simply--flatly--not true that any of us go to THAT level of detail. There are some things that all of us, even you, don't ask the players to play through, or do so in only a highly abstracted, rapid-pace kind of way (e.g. I don't imagine you have the players roll to see if their sleep is in some way interrupted for every minute of sleep!)

Click to expand...

While we don't agonize over every second of the PCs' existence, if it comes to a question of playing a given situation out in more detail or less I'll tend to err on the side of "more" every time.

EzekielRaiden said:

Really? Is that really a thing? Genuinely. I just don't believe that this actually happens with anywhere near enough frequency to matter. Especially because--surprise surprise!--most merchants aren't going to be willing to haggle in the first place. It's frankly a ridiculous and EXTREMELY unversimilitudinous idea that somehow got lodged in the early-D&D culture-of-play that every merchant is actually SUPER down to haggle over every single price, every single time, over and over until Kingdom come. That's just not how merchants operate. It simply, flatly isn't. Sure, on rare occasions, you might get the opportunity to haggle--but every single time? No. That's flatly ridiculous.

Click to expand...

In our euro-western culture it might be ridiculous, but in other cultures haggling is not only accepted but is in fact expected.

EzekielRaiden said:

If a merchant sells five torches for a silver piece, they sell five torches for a silver piece--that's legit verisimilitude. You aren't going to find a better deal because if you could, word would spread, and either the haggle-ee would go out of business because people keep demanding prices too low, or the other merchants will drop their prices to match. It's just outright ridiculous to claim that 100% of merchants will guaranteed ALWAYS be willing to even start haggling, let alone conclude doing so, let alone conclude doing so in the party's favor, let alone conclude doing so in the party's favor in a way that will make a difference umpteen-million sessions down the line maybe possibly if the stars are right and the Moon is in the House of the Wombat.

Click to expand...

If the merchant is ultimately willing to sell five torches for a silver they'll probably start by asking a silver for three torches.

Also, this assumes a plethora of torch-sellers; oftentimes in small towns there's only one.

EzekielRaiden said:

If the players WANT to make a thing of it, sure, shoot. But in the vast majority of cases, they won't get the chance; in the vast majority of cases where they get a chance, it won't make a difference; in the vast majority of cases where it makes a difference today, it will never matter later on. A remnant of a remnant of a remnant of a remnant is not a compelling case. I don't practice homeopathic GMing.

Click to expand...

I've both DMed and played in parties where the presence of absence of a seemingly trivial bit of gear (or information) has made the difference between everyone surviving and only one or two surviving.

And sure, most of the time (particularly once they've been on a few adventures and are by these standards stinkin' rich) they'll just see the listed price in the equipment catalog and go with it.

SableWyvern said:

If you would prefer to imagine me yelling at you for choosing to define something your own way, that's also OK. Go wild.

Click to expand...

Not really. I'd prefer that if something profoundly confusing, where I have pointed out a clear divergence between things that, up to this point, have been argued by you and others pretty consistently, that...some kind of explanation is forthcoming? Rather than being told "there's no problem here and I won't discuss it with you".

SableWyvern said:

If you're confused, it may be because no one has said, "there will never be situations where the GM controls events". It's always possible someone did say, but I'd be a little surprised if anyone really believes the GM never controls an event that happens in game.

Click to expand...

Okay. Then the repeated and frequent insistence on several things in this thread has been...what? Complete non-sequiturs?

Because sure, that precise string of ten words might not have been said. But it's pretty clear from things said by @Micah Sweet, @Lanefan, and numerous other posters that the GM exerting any control over those events for any reason was utterly unacceptable.

But perhaps I am wrong? Perhaps GMs forbidding some events and permitting others is actually acceptable? I'd love to hear their thoughts on this. It would...make almost the entirety of this conversation completely baffling to me, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

SableWyvern said:

First, the assertion that it's a key tool that all GMs should learn and use, as if there are problems that can occur in any game that can only be fixed with fail forward (or that fail forward is always the best solution for them).

Click to expand...

Well then you're already arguing against something I didn't say, either. So if you're correct that I was completely mistaken about "GM put her thumb on the scale" being an absolute no-no in "traditional GM" sandbox-y campaigns, we're 0/2 here.

I do think it should still be taught as one possible solution to a common problem, which is literally what I said. I also went to great length to say that it's perfectly fine for a GM to literally never once, in a "storied" career of GMing, feel even the slightest need to use fail forward. I still think it should be taught. Much as, for example, I think various methods of estimation should be taught, even if many people IRL will literally never use estimation since we have pocket calculators to give us precision to the Nth degree.

SableWyvern said:

Second, the idea that if a game is being run without a fail forward mechanic, suddenly inserting the mechanic to get around an unexpected problem (as if to create the illusion that it was the mechanic and not GM fiat that just occurred) is somehow a better solution than just admitting a mistake was made and fixing that mistake with open communication.

Click to expand...

Now you're just making up nonsense. Fail forward is not GM fiat, plain and simple. And, furthermore, it's not fail-forward advocates who are wanting a context where the GM doesn't admit they made a mistake.

It's the "traditional GMs" that want to avoid such admissions. Because that's letting the players into the black box. That's admitting that the whole thing is a game, not an immersive fantasy. It's putting the fact that we're people at a table--people who make mistakes--right out in the open.

You are quite literally arguing against something nobody here has said, nobody here would say. Where is this argument arising from? Who said these things? If you're going to take me to task for not being able to precisely quote anyone on the ten-word phrase above, why should I not do the same to you with this argument that you literally made up without any reference to any post in this thread?

SableWyvern said:

The other point I was making, and which I was clear about in the same post was this:

There is a big difference in feel and mood between a game where the players know that if they don't take wilderness dangers seriously they might get lost and die, and one where they know that they can take any degree of risk and fail forward their way to some kind of successful outcome anyway.

Click to expand...

Given that has...literally nothing whatsoever to do with fail forward, I'm not sure why you felt the need to make such an argument.

It is, 100%, completely, utterly unrelated to fail forward. Fail forward has literally nothing whatosever to do with "protecting" anyone from anything.

As Lanefan has (repeatedly) done, you intentionally pervert the concept of fail forward into "always succeed". It literally has FAIL in the name! It's about failure! You do, in fact, FAIL with fail forward!

How much more do I need to do to reveal this straw man for what it is?

SableWyvern said:

Nobody runs a game at 1:1 time during the session, all session, every session, not even the ACCURATE TIME RECORDS MUST BE KEPT fanatics who obsess over 1:1 time.

Everyone skips things all the time; I'm not sure how you would have reached the conclusion anyone was claiming otherwise.

Click to expand...

Well...

Lanefan said:

Thing is, a conflict-neutral or low-no stakes event now may - or may not - have all kinds of consequences down the road. And as you don't know what "down the road" is going to consist of until after you've got there and beyond, I say the default should be to play them out unless the players say not to.

Haggling the merchant down such that with your last few g.p. you can get 6 torches for the usual price of 5 might seem trivial at the time.....until later when having that 6th torch makes all the difference between the party surviving or getting wiped out.

Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what this argues? You never know what MIGHT happen...so you have to roleplay through everything. I challenged this post for precisely that reason.

SableWyvern said:

Some people have said they would allow people to roleplay their time in the cell for as long as they players are enjoying doing so; no one has claimed everyone has to sit around contemplating the characters' poor decisions in real time until either all the PCs die of starvation, they come up with a plan, or the cell door is opened.

Click to expand...

I mean it seems to me that that is precisely what is required from Lanefan's "you never know, down the road..." standard. You never know what might happen from every single event, no matter how small. Does that not mean you need to play through them all, unless-and-until the players explicitly state otherwise?

Lanefan said:

The relevant feature for me is, to put it simply, character development. Wa-a-ay more of my characters' development comes through downtime and-or no-stakes events e.g. campfire chats or shopping trips than through high-stakes field adventuring, in large part because in high-stakes field adventuring the top-of-mind thoughts (with extremely rare exceptions) revolve around survival and-or mission completion rather than whether I should pay for my brother to enter mage school or whether I'm truly in love with Bob's character or not, etc.

Click to expand...

Stakes in the sense we're talking about in the context of Narrativist play are personal stakes, as in stuff that matters to the character. It's not about world stakes or danger. A lot of what you consider downtime stuff would be the focus of a game like Apocalypse World as long as they represent a change in the status quo for the character. We would likely consider the adventuring stuff fairly low-stakes in that it really only threatens the character's life and doesn't address who they are.

Something might be very high stakes in Apocalypse World if you are playing a Gun Lugger is situation where Mary Jo, the girl who presses your bullets that you have an on again off again thing with is not talking to you because Dremmer said you spent too much time at the bar talking Rosie. This is a problem for you personally, because Dremmer is causing trouble for you and Rosie was giving leads for some gigs, but those leads do you no good if you don't have any damn bullets. So now you have to sort it out with Mary Jo or find someone else to press some bullets and deal with whatever personal storm comes with it.

Obviously very minimal impact on the state of the world. Massive impact on the state of your world.

Lanefan said:

In our euro-western culture it might be ridiculous, but in other cultures haggling is not only accepted but is in fact expected.

Click to expand...

And you are playing in a non-euro-western campaign then, completely outside of the typical D&D fantasy universe?

Because I'm 99.9% sure you use an extremely euro-western campaign setting. I believe we have specifically talked about that in the past, in fact.

Lanefan said:

If the merchant is ultimately willing to sell five torches for a silver they'll probably start by asking a silver for three torches.

Click to expand...

Only if they care about haggling....which means you've already presumed that every merchant haggles. That's begging the question.

Lanefan said:

Also, this assumes a plethora of torch-sellers; oftentimes in small towns there's only one.

Click to expand...

Perhaps; perhaps not. If there's only one in town, why would they even bother haggling? You don't have another choice. You have no leverage other than to make no purchase at all. If they're already set up, they're clearly not starving for business.

Lanefan said:

I've both DMed and played in parties where the presence of absence of a seemingly trivial bit of gear (or information) has made the difference between everyone surviving and only one or two surviving.

And sure, most of the time (particularly once they've been on a few adventures and are by these standards stinkin' rich) they'll just see the listed price in the equipment catalog and go with it.

Click to expand...

So then, if the vast majority of the time even the players don't see the point...would it not be better to default to "no" unless the players express interest, which...is literally what I said from the beginning? Like if you already know that the answer is almost always "no", what is the point of presuming yes and getting the "no" you know you'll get?

pemerton said:

If it's agreed by a group of people that they are going to keep meeting up, on a (semi-)regular basis, to do this RPGing thing, then there is always going to be imaginary stuff happening that involves some characters.

When should those be new characters, and when the same ones? I don't see how there can be any answer to this that is not extremely context-specific. Given that just about anything can make in-fiction sense, I don't regard that as any very strong constraint in this respect.

Click to expand...

If the rules or the players' action declarations or the dice or the situation dictate that these characters will die then I-as-DM feel I'm under no obligation to artificially keep them alive.

The group of people meeting up on a regular basis are well aware of this and will IME continue to meet up regardless; though they may be playing different characters next time.

Lanefan said:

The relevant feature for me is, to put it simply, character development. Wa-a-ay more of my characters' development comes through downtime and-or no-stakes events e.g. campfire chats or shopping trips than through high-stakes field adventuring, in large part because in high-stakes field adventuring the top-of-mind thoughts (with extremely rare exceptions) revolve around survival and-or mission completion rather than whether I should pay for my brother to enter mage school or whether I'm truly in love with Bob's character or not, etc.

Click to expand...

The things you describe are not low-stakes. These are high-stakes. They're not world-ending threats. But they are stakes that matter to the PCs. Those sorts of scenes are fantastically important to the process of play, and at least PbtA games all but tell you "yes, do that thing, that is great and wonderful".

Those things are highlights. Often, they are the most important highlights.

Haggling with a merchant over whether you get five torches or six isn't going to do any of that, it's just going to determine whether you get five torches or six.