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

AbdulAlhazred said:

I can't speak for others, but what I want is clear stakes. I want to know what I'm risking, what the potential rewards are, and how the rules of the game work in this situation. If @Lanefan tells me I am going to have to figure out what the rays do, that's fine. What are the ways to do that, and what are the benefits and risks of each strategy.

Click to expand...

The answer to the first question depends greatly on what the specific PCs can bring to bear on the situation. What they in fact did, after simple observation revealed nothing other than some timing elements, was summon two sets of creatures (3 summoned monsters [giant toads] and 3 summoned warriors) and sent them down there. Watching what happened to those creatures told them that there were a variety of possible effects, that not all the effects were deadly, that one of the effects was paralysis or stun, one generated an acidic web in that segment of the room, and that one summoned a Giant to defend the crystal. They also managed to connect some colours to their effects, enough to realize that the effect for each colour seemed to be consistent e.g. a green flash always summoned a Giant if there was anyone or anything threatening the crystal at the time.

The answer to the second question may or may not become apparent until after some trial and error.

Oh, and in case it matters, they had very strong reason to believe their overall goal was removal and-or destruction of the flashing gem.

AbdulAlhazred said:

What I don't want is a ton of long tedious low stakes prefatory play that could be elided. I don't want situations where I do the thing and some completely unknown factor is suddenly injected into play which snatches victory from my hands, or turns one level of risk/consequences into something different.

Click to expand...

Those sort of things (bolded) are IMO fine if used quite sparingly as a twist or unexpected consequence. Any more frequent than that, and yeah, it's not much fun.

Faolyn said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is if it's the eldritch monstrosity trying to open the lock.

AbdulAlhazred said:

I think the issue here is the difference between simple task adjudication and Narrativist 'fiction resolution'. Even in AW I'd like to see some generalization. Jane is breaking into the warehouse, of course she can succeed! If the place is entirely unguarded why even roll? Is there a secondary goal, like not leaving any sign of a break in? Adjudicate that! Honestly, the problem here is wasting time on nothingburger play. The place is completely safe, let's adjudicate whether you got what you wanted. Goodness! The problem is all this stakeless BS play.

Click to expand...

Except it's still not stakeless.

Simply allowing Jane to break into the warehouse without a roll makes a pile of assumptions I'm not willing to make, the most significant of which is that she's in fact capable of breaking into this warehouse at this time; which in a much higher-level view means we're assuming her lock-picking competence is perfect. News flash: nobody is ever perfect.

And so, rather obviously, the stakes on the roll to see if she can pick the lock are - even absent any other complications - simply whether or not she can get in to the warehouse via this method and-or this entrance in order to do whatever it is she wants to do in there. If she can, great. If she can't, she has to go to a plan B which might cost resources and will certainly cost time; I-as-DM will want her player to tell me what that plan B is, and we'll then resolve that as needed.

And this can have downstream effects, too. If she can't unlock her preferred door going in and has to go in via some other entrance, that means that door will still be locked should she later need to get out that way.

The Firebird said:

No, not at all. The PCs can interact with anyone. If it's something the GM hasn't fleshed out explicitly, ideally there are random tables or the like (as Micah said) to help do it on the fly.

Click to expand...

Is there a reason why you can't just make it up in your head instead of random tables? Do you simply not want to? Is it something you feel you're not good at?

The Firebird said:

Hard moves? Setup moves? or both?

Click to expand...

A soft move is "You see an orc; what do you do?" A hard move is "As soon as you see the orc, it raises its sword and charges! Roll for initiative." In other words, a soft move offer the PCs an opportunity to do things (they can choose to move out of sight, to attack the orc, to talk to the orc, etc.), while the hard move creates an immediate consequence (the orc is attacking).

I'm not entirely sure what a setup move is; that term isn't used in the games I've read.

The Firebird said:

How closely do they have to align with the fiction? Can they create new NPCs that previously didn't exist?

Click to expand...

They should align as closely as they would in any game. If you're breaking into a poor hovel, there won't be a cook (as in, a servant or employee whose job it is to cook). If you're breaking into an estate, there will be.

And of course they can create new NPCs, just like in any other game.

Eric V said:

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.

Click to expand...

There's an awful lot of personal opinion dressed up as objective fact here. Maybe try considering the idea that your thoughts on what everybody wants are not actually what everybody wants?

hawkeyefan said:

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.



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?



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.

Click to expand...

How does your refutation of my statement actually refute it? Your goal is to bash on / aggressively analyze traditional play. And that's what's happening, with a side of "Narrativist games are the best! Why are you playing other games?"

So, the way I tend to view the listed GM Moves in any given game is that these are the things that you explicitly have the authority to do and also a list of the sort of things that you should be doing for the most part. But these lists are incredibly open-ended and usually if your reaction to a player action isn't one of those things you likely want to be running a different game and should put some thought into changes to the game.

These explicit permissions are important because generally they give you permission to do things to people's characters and take a bit of control over them. Like the example for turn their move against them in Monsterhearts is the MC to describing how a character who lashes out physically beats their target to a bloody pulp, shocking and horrifying everyone around them. Totally appropriate in Monsterhearts, but not appropriate in most games.

They also often include specific mechanical things like inflicting a condition, which establishes a reputation throughout the school or triggering a character's darkest self which means they are stuck in a monstrous state with playbook defined consequences until they overcome with the relevant fictional positioning.

At the end of the day, the most important bit to get right is the move cycle. Knocking stuff down only after setting up. Then agenda and principles. Like the individual GM Moves are important, but the game doesn't break if you veer from them sometimes. This is all a starting point, just like any game is. You make adjustments over time for your particular game.

But yeah, I think this stuff matters more because this sort of play involves us ceding more control to one another. Basic moves being these sorts of bits of authority players get to mess with each other and the world as long as they clear a certain fictional bar and GM Moves being explicit permission to mess with the characters, actively. Which is why stuff like agenda and principles or best practices takes a more important meaning. We're actively messing with each other's stuff so we need to like not get possessive, be fans of each others' characters and the like.

Faolyn said:

This.

Back in 1e, there was an optional rule in the DMG that, after every in-game month, the players needed to make percentile checks to see if they caught a disease, such as "cardiovascular-renal" afflictions (possibly fatal in d12 days), leprosy, or a UTI, or a parasite.

Was this realistic? Yes. PCs are always crawling through filthy places with open wounds (and many of those wounds were caused by filthy claws or blades), and they eat crappy dried rations and badly roasted monster meat--real wild meat has to be prepared carefully because of the parasites; imagine what an owlbear is infested with. And who knows what those potions are made with! There's no list of side effects or adverse events, let alone potential allergens!

Was this actually fun? Well, I don't think that these two pages full of tables and calculations ever showed up again in an official book, and I don't think I ever saw it addressed in Dragon Magazine (I might have missed those articles or letters) so that should tell people that the writers figured that this level of attention to realism wasn't necessarily wanted.

(Watch: someone will reply saying they use this rule religiously.)

Click to expand...

I think this is slightly missing the point, getting into strawman territory. I think it is important to seperate the concept of "realstic procedures" vs "realistic outcomes" vs "most probable outcomes". I think there nowdays are very few in the realistic procedures camp. The wound/hp system is the best known offender. It seem most people do recognise they do not like playing with festering wounds that take unknown time before is healed or kills you.

I have also not seen many claim they want to adhere to the most probable outcome, without quickly clarifying/moderating themselves. After all we do not know what is most probable, and most players like some randomnes as well in their outcomes, alowing for less probable things to happen.

So when I see someone claim they prefer "more realistic" outcomes i think it is wrong to look at it on a probability scale. For an outcome to be less "realistic" than something else I think you need to look at underlying assumptions of the situation, and for an option to be less realistic than another, it needs to break some of those assumptions.

To make an example: we are playing a game presented as being set in the real world during ancient times, with no magic or anything of that sorts. Someone gets wounded. Compare two possible outcomes: the wound festers, or the wound heals without complications. The first option might have been more probable in the real world, than the other - but as we are not insisting on realistic procedures, or most probable outcome this observation do not favor the first. As it is easy to imagine both things happening given the assumption, both are similarly realistic. So a group claiming to maximise realism can with god concience deside the wound heals with no complication without any further ceremony.

However if we introduce the potential outcome that a holy man touches the wound, and it instantly heals this is a problem. While there are certanly stories that claims this has happened, it still seem to cause friction against the "no magic" assumption. Hence this option would have to be discarded in this particular game for the group that claims they adhere to maximum realism. If on the other hand the agreement had been to play in mythic mideval Europe, this option would probably be deemed just as "realistic" as the two more mundane, and hence fully on the table as an option.

FrogReaver said:

Providing a list of reasons the player may do something, doesn't answer a question about the game incentive for doing it.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "game incentive", if you mean something other than reasons why a player in a game might do something.

If you mean how does doing it help you win, I don't think that question is apposite for AW or BW, which aren't about "beating the scenario" or that sort of thing.

FrogReaver said:

my question is specifically about the game incentives in the context of a specific scenario.

Click to expand...

You haven't give me a specific scenario.

I mean, I know you think you have. But you haven't. Who is the character? In mechanical terms, where is the character sitting in the advancement cycle, and how will whatever action you have in mind feed into that, if declared? Why are the character at this house, thinking of breaking in? What is going on such that the GM might think introducing a screaming cook even makes sense?

FrogReaver said:

Why the heck would you need to run the game to talk about such a scenario?

Click to expand...

The complaints about the screaming cook are that it comes from nowhere. You are asking me to explain how it might come from somewhere. My answer is, "Imagine game play where entering the house, who is in the house, kitchens, startled servants, etc, etc speak to the concerns of play, bring home threatened consequences, etc, etc."

Presumably you can do that as well as I can.

TwoSix said:

To be honest, I'm just taking other people's word for it that Australia is real.

Click to expand...

I know it's intended as a joke, but philosophers are notoriously unfunny - your only evidence for existence of most places in the world is the testimony of others.