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

Can you imagine a situation where, "the story we've been making together is ruined" is not really the concern at the table? That there are people who have other priorities in their play?
Yes, actually. Those priorities, though, I have found, are better served through video games like Baldur's Gate, or campaign games like Roll Player Adventures, Tainted Grail, etc. When I made the board game comment above, it wasn't as a perjorative.*

What RPGs can do that can't be replicated by the above is really give the player a chance to inhabit the character, and by so doing, the character's place in the world. To be invested in the fictional world at large. Actually roleplay as a character with their own set of desires, goals, quirks, etc. If it's really good, it carries over to interactions in character amongst the party members.

To then take a group like that and say "Hey Frank, tough luck but no biggie, we'll just resurrect you later or whatever," is just not a response anyone but a psychopath would give if they were actually going through the situation with their friends. I have 4 hours a month I can give to a game and through a bad climbing roll my character dies? THAT's the decision the GM decides a 1 means?

At that point, the message is "Don't get too invested, don't try to inhabit the character, because there's a good mathematical chance you won't see it pay off." And sure, there are games where that can be what it's about, like competitive play, or just mechanically solving the mission, or whatever. It just seems that board games and video games address those priorities better these days; I don't have to personally invest in the character, just play them as a set of mechanics, and see what comes next.

*Edit for additional comment on this: Board game design has come a long way, and it is now rare to find a game where a player can be eliminated from play with a bad roll (or even a series of them); it's understood people showed up to play.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes. It means if you want to play the game "correctly", you have to do it their way and abide by their constraints. There's no GM discretion on what to do, just on how. At least, that's how it's always read to me.
Except those aren't constraints. They're simply the same things that every GM does, but written down in a handy bulleted list.

Here's the list from MotW:

Every time it’s your turn in the conversation to tell the hunters what happens, or when they look at you expecting you to say something, use one of these moves:

• Separate them.
• Reveal future badness.
• Reveal off-screen badness.
• Inflict harm, as established.
• Make them investigate.
• Make them acquire stuff.
• Tell them the possible consequences and ask if they want to go ahead.
• Turn their move back on them.
• Offer an opportunity, maybe with a cost.
• Take away some of the hunters’ stuff.
• Put someone in trouble.
• Make a threat move, from one of your mystery or arc threats.
• After every move, ask what they do next

Separate Them: Ever had a bridge break when only have the party has crossed over? Heck, AD&D has a "bend bars/lift gates" roll just for those times when a portcullis crashes down between the party, stranding half on one side and half on the other.

Reveal Future Badness: If you've ever had the party come across the clawmarks of the creature they're hunting, or a puddle of blood, or an unhinged message scrawled onto the wall, you've revealed future badness. The whole "Signs" section in each of Level Up's monster entries is about how to reveal future badness.

Reveal Off-Screen Badness: If the PCs ever hear a scream or the sounds of battle, that's this: Something is happening right now, and the PCs can react to it.

Inflict Harm, as Established: If you've established something, like an environmental hazard, can be dangerous, you probably actually make it dangerous, right? And that means inflicting damage--or exhaustion/stress, in Level Up.

Make Them Investigate: Ever hide clues? Put a secret door or compartment in an area?

Make Them Acquire Stuff: I'm sure you've had adventures where the PCs need to get X before they can do Y.

Tell Them The Possible Consequences And Ask If They Want To Go Ahead: "Are you sure you want to do that?" is one of the most important GM phrases out there. I'm sure you've used it.

Turn Their Move Back On Them: This one isn't obvious, because D&D doesn't use moves. But what it means is to make what they're trying to do dangerous or backfire in some way, even if only in response to a bad roll of theirs.

Offer An Opportunity, Maybe With Cost: I'm sure you've done this as well. The PC can grab the jewel. The PC can either grab the jewel or help their friend, but not both. The innkeeper will allow the PCs to stay for free, if the bard performs to their satisfaction. Things like that.

Take Away Some Of The Hunters' Stuff: This is literally built into Level Up's exploration challenges, where poor rolls cause a loss of Supply. But there's a good chance you've broken their weapons and tools (maybe a crit fail on a lockpick roll causes the pick to break), or had their stuff stolen by thieves, mischievous fey, and so on.

Put Someone In Trouble: If you've ever had the monsters focus on one PC, you've done this. If you've ever had an NPC ally get in trouble, you've done this. If you've ever had hapless NPCs be threatened and in need of rescue, you've done this.

Make A Threat Move: If your adventure notes (whether ones you've written or ones you've bought) has had things like random encounters, notes on how specific creatures might react, traps, hazardous areas, moving threats, etc., you've done this.

And then there's soft moves and hard moves, which is the difference between "You see an orc with his sword in his hand; what do you do?" and "As soon as you spot the orc, it raises its sword and charges! Roll for initiative."

Anyway, as you can see, there's no constraints here. It may seem weird to see them all spelled out like that--it was a bit weird for me, the first time I saw it--but it's literally all the same things all GMs are doing anyway. The only difference is that it's spelled out, rather than being scattered across books, old Dragon Magazine articles, and blog posts, or being learned through trial and error. And it's not a constraint because you're not limited to that list. If you can think of something else to do as the GM, go ahead. Daggerheart has a somewhat different list of GM moves, including (but not limited to) things like "Show How The World Reacts" and "Use a PC's Backstory Against Them", which, again, are things I'm sure you've done at least once.
 

After re-reading, it's clear to me that @pemerton has a different definition of Fail Forward than other people have. I've stated my preference on why I don't care for Fail Forward (e.g. a chef that screams for help only exists because of a failed check to pick a lock). What @pemerton calls fail forward? I would call "You failed a check, your declared action did not work and now there are repercussions". In the games I play a failed check doesn't guarantee any repercussions other than the failed action but that's because we talking about different approaches to gaming.

I don't think that @pemerton is using a different definition of fail forward. I think that it can be used in a variety of ways, and you're not really getting it. As the bolded bit above shows. You've been told several times that's not how it works. The complication or the consequence used in fail forward should follow from the fiction. It should make sense given what's been established and what's sensible or implicit in the scene.

If this were a DW subforum or specifically labeled DW it would be logical to assume people are talking about this issue from the perspective of DW. On the other hand, we're on a D&D subforum labeled D&D general so why do you expect people to assume another system's rules are at play?

Because from the OP and going on for over a thousand pages now, the thread has been about challenging the conservatism of D&D and its fans, and how the game must continue to change as time goes by.

How are you surprised or dismayed at this point in the discussion that people are going to talk about other RPGs given the context of the thread?

I've been told the purpose of this thread is to bash on / aggressively analyze traditional play.

No, it's about the conservatism of D&D and how it can change. The very nature of the topic is going to involve challenging how things are done and suggestions on how they can change.

Now, if you want to defend the way things are and how they work, that's fine. But please... stop acting like those of us challenging how D&D handles play are somehow doing something problematic for this thread.
 

Yes, actually. Those priorities, though, I have found, are better served through video games like Baldur's Gate, or campaign games like Roll Player Adventures, Tainted Grail, etc. When I made the board game comment above, it wasn't as a perjorative.*
I absolutely love these kinds of board games. However none of them hold a candle to TTRPGs when it come to provide the kind of challenges i love in TTRPGs. And computer RPGs i have found to feel mostly like a pale mockery of the real deal that I can just accept when I do not have possibility to play the real thing.

The solution space of problems in a TTRPG is infinite. This is what sets it appart from these medias for me. Not the posibility for colaborative storytelling. Not the immersion, which frankly I find offputing when co-players lean too much into. The possibility to look at a challenge and know that you have full ability to break the box in any manner of ways you can think of to overcome it. That is the unique thing makes me love TTRPGs.
 

I absolutely love these kinds of board games. However none of them hold a candle to TTRPGs when it come to provide the kind of challenges i love in TTRPGs. And computer RPGs i have found to feel mostly like a pale mockery of the real deal that I can just accept when I do not have possibility to play the real thing.

The solution space of problems in a TTRPG is infinite. This is what sets it appart from these medias for me. Not the posibility for colaborative storytelling. Not the immersion, which frankly I find offputing when co-players lean too much into. The possibility to look at a challenge and know that you have full ability to break the box in any manner of ways you can think of to overcome it. That is the unique thing makes me love TTRPGs.
So that's similar to what was called "competitive play" back in the day.
 

Why would it have nothing to do with the cook? If you're breaking into a kitchen, and there's a cook there, it seems to me that the things are connected.
You're confused. Correlation does not equal causation. The cook being there)or not) isn't connected to picking a lock
Also, there's no reason that a game cannot use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Like we look at the entire situation... breaking into the kitchen and a cook being there... and then the player's roll tells us how the situation is resolved. A high roll means successfully, a low roll means unsuccessfully. On the unsuccessful result, what is the outcome? Maybe they can't even pick the lock, or maybe they do get in, but the cook notices.
Yep. You are arguing against nothing here. Nobody has said you can't use a resolution process that connects a cook to picking a lock.
There's no reason that we MUST use task resolution. Some games specifically use another approach.
Two for two on arguing something nobody is saying!
Seriously... this inability to make fail forward work is kind of remarkable. People are actively using their imagination to make it not work. All you have to do is flip that. Use your imagination to make it work. The idea that one of these things is problematic and the other isn't, is very strange.
Not as remarkable as the amount of arrogance it takes to assume that people who have a preference other than yours don't have enough imagination to make your way work, or are actively making it not work.

We just like something different.
 

So again, it's a matter of skipping over details and procedure...which would seem to be the very stuff of investigative scenes and situations.
It's not skipping those details and procedures. What it's doing is not (necessarily) requiring a roll for each and every one of them.

If there's no win condition and-or no loss consition, it's not a game.
Did you forget about the roleplaying part? Even if you never roll dice, you can still roleplay.

And yes, you can "win" at RPGs in various ways, just like you can "lose" at them; the main difference between RPGs and most other games being that a single win or loss is almost always merely a passing event in ongoing play rather than a game-ender.
The only way you can really lose at an RPG is if you didn't enjoy playing the game. Even if you lose the adventure--there's a TPK, you don't stop the apocalypse, whatever--if you enjoyed the process, you won.

I should point out that in the door example, there was no rolling involved - that was just the players trying and failing to solve a (in hindsight fairly simple) riddle.
1749584395960.jpeg


As for it being a waste of time - sure it was frustrating as hell until we got it, but the cheer and relief when we finally did get it was worth it.
A cheer because you had a fun time solving it, or a cheer because it was over? I can cheer when I'm done with a dental appointment; that doesn't mean it was an enjoyable experience.

Sometimes maintaining the status quo IS the win.
Only for a very specific type of thing. "The eldritch monstrosity doesn't awaken" type of thing.

"The lock doesn't open and nothing happens" isn't a win.

You're lowering a heavy companion down on a rope and holding him there (think the first Mission Impossible movie). You need to make a strength check every now and then to not drop him. Succeed, and the status quo continues. Fail, and you've got big problems.
No, the status quo doesn't continue--if it did, everyone would still be up above. The "win condition" is getting everyone safely down, which by definition is a change.
 

Anyway, as you can see, there's no constraints here. It may seem weird to see them all spelled out like that--it was a bit weird for me, the first time I saw it--but it's literally all the same things all GMs are doing anyway. The only difference is that it's spelled out, rather than being scattered across books, old Dragon Magazine articles, and blog posts, or being learned through trial and error. And it's not a constraint because you're not limited to that list. If you can think of something else to do as the GM, go ahead. Daggerheart has a somewhat different list of GM moves, including (but not limited to) things like "Show How The World Reacts" and "Use a PC's Backstory Against Them", which, again, are things I'm sure you've done at least once.
My bolding. Also for reference the heading for the list you quoted:
"Every time it’s your turn in the conversation to tell the hunters what happens, or when they look at you expecting you to say something, use one of these moves:"
The way this is formulated it sure sound like it is intended as a comprehensive list of all the possible moves in the game. That impression is also strengthened by how people have been talking about how DMs ae limited to certain moves in these games, as a good thing.

This list of course do only include things DMs have been doing for a long time. The issue is that it absolutely do not contain everything a DM are prone to do in such a situation. For instance "time passes", "flashback scene", "reveal a colorful piece of lore, with no real impact on the story", "Ask player to describe something they want to happen in the session oracle style".

So if the thing I bolded actually is true, and we are free to come up with whatever moves we would like with no prior player buy in, I seriously do not see the point of the move system. Given all the confusion around it I think it should by clear by now that if it really was intended to educate people about suggestions of things they could do that they could find in Dragon Magazine, then Dragon Magazine provided a pedagogically superior way of conveying this information...
 
Last edited:

So that's similar to what was called "competitive play" back in the day.
I do not think so. I do not think it was common in competative play to see a frog men guarding the entrance to a cave and think "hm, maybe we could get them to worship our petrified prior companion rather than their current idol to get on their good side?" I think any competative game referee allowing such shenanigans would be called out for foul play and player bias. This is one of the best moves I have ever seen players come up with in one of my games.

Yes there is story here. But it is also a solution to a problem that is really thinking way outside the box. Show me the board game that can replicate this.
 

Any game, wherever it's discussed, ought to be discussed within the context of its own design. Taking out pieces of a game design and analyzing them within the context of other structures of play will never bring understanding. Understanding starts with empathy, stepping into the mentality and process of running and playing it.

This is as true for D&D as any other game. It would be foolish for me to look at D&D and ask why it doesn't deliver the same sort of play as Dungeon World, Stonetop or Daggerheart when it never contends to.
Yet people regularly don't qualify the context so we're left to guess. The default in that case is to assume D&D. Just like if I were in the UK and started talking about football.
 

Remove ads

Top