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

pemerton said:

As it happens, I know some pretty serious pure mathematicians.

They can tell me some things that I can (almost) make sense of. I believe them. It would be pointless for me to ask them to back up their reasoning - I wouldn't understand it.

This generalises across most fields of technical expertise.

The reason I believe the electrician who tells me that the wiring in my house is safe after inspecting it is because they're a qualified electrician. That's not fallacy, that's accepting the distribution of knowledge and expertise that is part and parcel of human society.

Click to expand...

And yet qualified electricians make mistakes, take cheap routes, etc. leaving folks with unsafe houses all the time. Perhaps people would be better served not Appealing to Authority on that matter.

There's a reason why people who go to doctors get second and sometimes third opinions.

AlViking said:

In my games the house may or may not be populated. I will know by whom and where before the characters when to break into the building. No protagonists will be added after they attempt to break in because it would be more interesting.

Click to expand...

No protagonists? Do you just mean characters?

So a cook is very likely to be found in a kitchen, right? But the cook will not spend their entire day there. The cook needs to sleep and use the privy and maybe go down to the stables and chat with the farrier. Possibly something else entirely unexpected.

Does a sandbox GM actually track all that movement and then cross reference the time the cook is in the kitchen with the time the PCs pick the lock to enter the kitchen?

No, of course not. You decide where she is, or maybe you roll. But you don’t determine her exact location until you need to. Sure… the kitchen is a logical default for a cook, but this is a living, breathing world we’re talking about, she’s gonna move around.

So why not include that in the roll? This way, if the player rolls well and succeeds, things go well, and if they roll poorly, you have more options than just “you can’t pick the lock”.

As near as I can tell, this seems to be more about maintaining control of the cook and the overall environment in general, which means the player could roll well and pick the lock, and then you could still say they’re heard by the cook. Or you could demand a stealth roll on top of the lock pick roll.

AlViking said:

Multiple people have stated that if the players do not have full knowledge of the situation they can't possibly make an informed decision and it's bad GMing. I disagree, I want mystery and discovery when I play. Even when it comes back to bite me on the posterior.

Click to expand...

No, that’s a misinterpretation in a couple of ways. No one has said that they need full knowledge. The more they have, the more informed they are.

And no one ever said it was bad GMing. We said it didn’t allow as much player agency as other methods would. Some people also said they may not prefer that type of GMing… but that doesn’t make it bad.

pemerton said:

You keep pointing to an example where the consequence - the screaming cook - has not been telegraphed, has not been expressly or implicitly put at stake, and appears like a rabbit out of hat.

When people who actually play Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World and other games in which "nothing happens" is not a GM-side move point out that your example is silly, you ignore them.

John Harper posted about this on his blog 14 years ago:

I've seen people struggle with hard moves in the moment. Like, when the dice miss, the MC stares at it like, "Crap! Now I have to invent something! Better make it dangerous and cool! Uh... some ninja... drop out of the ceiling... with poison knives! Grah!"​

​

Don't do that. Instead, when it's time for a hard move, look back at the setup move(s) you made. What was threatened? What was about to happen, before the PC took action? Follow through on that. Bring the effects on screen. Bring the consequences to fruition.​

That's what "fail forward" looks like. Not "quantum cooks".

Click to expand...

I think this is an interesting article but I don't think it solves the quantum cook issue. You try to pick the lock and get a fail forward result. In this case, the setup move could introduce the cook. Following Harper: "You pick the lock but there is a cook in the room who sees you. What do you do?"

The cook was still conjured into existence as a result of the lock picking roll.

Do I understand Harper correctly?

Micah Sweet said:

But only the first part of that passage supported their point! Why would they bring up the rest?

Click to expand...

I just looked at that quote again and what he said afterwards was even stronger. He said,

"This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged."

If it didn't interfere, he attempted the highest degree of realism.

Micah Sweet said:

And yet we don't all play games that demand death by narrative only. Weird.

Click to expand...

Clearly there are many people for whom that if does not apply, yet many more for whom it does.

The Firebird said:

No. But I think you would do better to say "this is how I would run it now and it works better for me" rather than "Luke Crane says to run it like this". The first engages more genuinely, while the second only invokes an authority.

Click to expand...

I've posted numerous examples over the whole course of this thread.

The Firebird said:

I think this is an interesting article but I don't think it solves the quantum cook issue. You try to pick the lock and get a fail forward result. In this case, the setup move could introduce the cook. Following Harper: "You pick the lock but there is a cook in the room who sees you. What do you do?"

The cook was still conjured into existence as a result of the lock picking roll.

Do I understand Harper correctly?

Click to expand...

I can tell you what Harper is saying. I anticipate I will then be berated for pointlessly and fallaciously referring to an authority. But here goes . . .


So here, Harper says that the GM should not narrate "quantum" ninjas. The point generalises to cooks - he's just chosen ninjas because they're a colourful illustration of the point.

And here Harper says what a GM should do:


Is a screaming cook a consequence brought to fruition? Does it follow through on an earlier "setup" move (eg something to do with kitchens, and/or personnel, and/or a concern that the PC might startle someone if they open a door that everyone in the building assumes to be secured against entrance)?

You seem to be assuming that the answer is "no". @AlViking is definitely assuming that the answer is "no".

Of course no one has to take John Harper's advice, or Luke Crane's advice. If they want silly consequences like ninjas randomly dropping from the ceiling, that's their prerogative.

Micah Sweet said:

For me, the story doesn't become a story until it's over.

Click to expand...

It's over for the paladin...and in very lame fashion.

pemerton said:

You keep pointing to an example where the consequence - the screaming cook - has not been telegraphed, has not been expressly or implicitly put at stake, and appears like a rabbit out of hat.

When people who actually play Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World and other games in which "nothing happens" is not a GM-side move point out that your example is silly, you ignore them.

John Harper posted about this on his blog 14 years ago:

I've seen people struggle with hard moves in the moment. Like, when the dice miss, the MC stares at it like, "Crap! Now I have to invent something! Better make it dangerous and cool! Uh... some ninja... drop out of the ceiling... with poison knives! Grah!"​

​

Don't do that. Instead, when it's time for a hard move, look back at the setup move(s) you made. What was threatened? What was about to happen, before the PC took action? Follow through on that. Bring the effects on screen. Bring the consequences to fruition.​

That's what "fail forward" looks like. Not "quantum cooks".

Click to expand...

Then what would it look like? A concrete actual example?

pemerton said:

I've posted numerous examples over the whole course of this thread.

Click to expand...

I stepped away for a while. I remember seeing many examples from you, but I also recall they were hard to follow because it wasn't clear how they came to bear on the question at hand.

pemerton said:

I can tell you what Harper is saying. I anticipate I will then be berated for pointlessly and fallaciously referring to an authority.

Click to expand...

I don't think the following is an argument from authority, fwiw.

pemerton said:

So here, Harper says that the GM should not narrate "quantum" ninjas. The point generalises to cooks - he's just chosen ninjas because they're a colourful illustration of the point.

Click to expand...

With you.

pemerton said:

And here Harper says what a GM should do:

Instead, when it's time for a hard move, look back at the setup move(s) you made. What was threatened? What was about to happen, before the PC took action? Follow through on that. Bring the effects on screen. Bring the consequences to fruition.​

Is a screaming cook a consequence brought to fruition? Does it follow through on an earlier "setup" move (eg something to do with kitchens, and/or personnel, and/or a concern that the PC might startle someone if they open a door that everyone in the building assumes to be secured against entrance)?

Click to expand...

I'm with you to the extent that the GM doesn't directly go to a hard move that didn't have setup. But can't they go to a setup move that didn't have prior setup? That is, can't the fail forward result lead to the setup move:

"You open the door but a cook sees you, and glances around in alarm. What do you do?"

They aren't screaming yet, but they could be.

Or should the fail forward from picking the lock lead directly to a hard move?

AlViking said:

Who said the house is likely to have a cook? Is the cook in kitchen 24 hours a day? Who needs a chef at 2 AM? The point is that if the character had succeeded on their check the cook would not have been there they were invented after the fact because of a failure.

Click to expand...

...OK, you know it doesn't have to be a cook, right? It could be a member of the house having a midnight snack. It could be the dog. It could be that the PC knocks over a stack of pots and pans, making a huge clattering noise, or the shutters slam back noisily. It could be that the window or the floor beneath it is actually trapped in some way, harming, incapacitating, or temporarily inconveniencing the PC. It could even that the PC burglar interrupts an NPC burglar!

AlViking said:

How does what work? If they're breaking into a business

Click to expand...

I said house. Do you flesh out each and every single house in your world, just in case the players decide they want to break into one? Do you flesh out every single person who lives in the world, just in case the player says "Hey, you there!" to one and starts asking personal questions.

AlViking said:

in the middle of the day I will have decided whether or not there will be someone in the back room. If it's uncertain if there's someone in the back room, I'll determine the odds and roll for it. If they wait until the middle of the night and the business is only open during the day and doesn't pay to have a security guard, there will be no one in the back room. Of course the players can always do whatever they want and so so on a regular basis. If I haven't thought about something ahead of time I'll make a judgement call based on what makes sense in the fictional world.

Click to expand...

In other words, you do exactly what I've been talking about this whole time. You make a judgement call about what makes the most sense.

The difference is, narrative games have that baked into the rules.

AlViking said:

Are they breaking into a business? What kind? Is it the kind that could employ a security guard or perhaps a watch dog? If I think it's possible but not guaranteed I'll roll the dice. What I won't do is make up something on the fly because they failed a check because I want a complication unrelated to their check.

Click to expand...

So if the PCs are trying to stealth somewhere so the NPCs don't hear them, and they fail, indicating they make noise, you won't have the NPCs react to the noise?

If that's the case, then why bother having the PCs roll for stealth in the first place? Just let them waltz on through.

If it's not the case--that the PCs failing to move quietly will attract attention--then again, that's exactly what narrative, fail-forward games do.