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

Faolyn said:

So you never, ever make up anything by yourself, is what you're saying?

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

Yeah, I'm going to say that really misses most of the point, and fun, of an RPG. And honestly, I cannot imagine how a random die roll makes anything more meaningful than something that actually has had some thought into it. Random tables are just that--random, and therefore are far more likely to produce nonsensical results at the best of times.

Click to expand...

Hussar said:

There is essentially, though, absolutely no difference between the DM simply making it up on the fly and using a table that the DM made up on the fly two weeks ago and is using now.

Click to expand...

The Firebird said:

Tables systematize the results and make the choices more meaningful.

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

I cannot imagine how a random die roll makes anything more meaningful than something that actually has had some thought into it.

Click to expand...

hawkeyefan said:

Many of the folks who advocate for heavy prep said that they, at times, still have to come up with material on the fly. So what if the GM decides that, based on their idea of a living breathing world, there’s a cook in the kitchen?

Click to expand...

The Firebird said:

When I have more time to think I can make the encounters better reflect the world.

Click to expand...

hawkeyefan said:

Is the cook a quantum if the GM decides that’s where she is?

Click to expand...

hawkeyefan said:

Many of the folks who advocate for heavy prep said that they, at times, still have to come up with material on the fly. So what if the GM decides that, based on their idea of a living breathing world, there’s a cook in the kitchen?

Click to expand...

hawkeyefan said:

No, I mean specifically who. There appear to be several different takes on fail forward among the folks you seem to be speaking for, and not all are in lock step. So I’m asking who you’re speaking for to have a better idea of your take on it.

Click to expand...

The Firebird said:

The important thing is that they do not create complications which are not directly related to the roll. Because in that case, the player's choice of approach becomes less meaningful as it is less effective at avoiding obstacles.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

I am assuming that The Firebird has in mind something like this:

Case 1:​

​

1. When you want to describe the weather where the characters are, roll. On a success, say what the weather's like there. (On a failure, it's 76°, few clouds, with a pleasant little breeze.)​

​

2. When your character's taking strenuous action, if it's oppressively hot where your character is, you get -2 to your roll. . . .​

​

Case 2:​

​

1. When you want to give another player a die penalty, make a roll. On a success, a) say what's making life hard for their character, and b) give them a -2 to their roll. . . .​

​

In case 1, the more time and conceptual space between those two rules' applications, the more real the oppressive heat will seem. For instance: you make a weather roll at the beginning of the session, declare that it's oppressively hot, and so for the entire session all the players roll -2 for all their characters' strenuous actions.​

This is why Apocalypse World uses a soft move/hard move sequence: the soft move establishes time and conceptual space between the threat (or promise) and its realisation.

Click to expand...

Hussar said:

My point in all of this is that the whole notion of "living world" is myth. Your world, my world, and anyone else's world's are all subject to the biases and thought processes of the person creating them. At no point is there any objective nature in anything you, I or anyone else creates for our game worlds.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

Just so we're all clear: managing risk and avoiding obstacles are not the only dimensions of meaning that are possible in RPGing.

In games that use "fail forward" resolution, they are typically not that important at all.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

You can see more of my thoughts in the post just above.

"Fail forward" is primarily the idea that nothing happens is not a permissible GM response.

Secondarily - and this is perhaps better captured via the "no whiffing" formulation - is the idea that the narration of a failed check need not present the PC as incompetent. (See eg the example of me failing the test for Aedhros's singing.)

Burning Wheel captures these two things by instructing the GM, when narrating failure, (i) to introduce a complication and (ii) to focus on intent. (i) is what ensures that "nothing happens" is off the table. (ii) leaves open what the GM says about the attempted task, which in turn is what leaves a lot of scope to narrate failure without incompetence.

As I try to explain in that post, I think that @AlViking's response to my examples that they are merely consequence or repercussions is somewhat missing the point: they are consequences other than that nothing happens; and they are consequences of things in the fiction other than the incompetence of the PC.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

I think we can take it that the cook screaming is a hard move. So let's reason back - what player-side move failed, such that the cook was startled and screamed? The most obvious candidate is Act Under Fire.

So what was the character doing? Maybe they're the advance scout for the assault on Dremmer's compound:

First, let's imagine the player recites their PC's knowledge - it's a bit artificial as an example of play, but provides some context.

"I know that Dremmer has a storeroom at the edge of the compound, with a gate for taking deliveries. There's a fancy electronic lock on it, so it's not well guarded. I reckon I can crack that lock and sneak in."

The GM nods: "OK, so you're at the gate to the storeroom. It's locked like you expected. It's not well guarded, but that doesn't mean no one ever comes by here. You haven't got all night."

"OK, I bust out my tools and work on the lock, as quickly as I can."

"That Acting Under Fire, and the fire is - you'll be spotted before you're in." The player rolls, and succeeds on a 7 to 9. The GM offers an ugly choice: "You get it open, but you can hear someone's coming. And you can't see yet what's on the other side of the gate. Do you go through into whatever's there? Or wait to see who comes?"

The player decides to go in. "There's someone in there with a torch. Looks like Dremmer's cook Pattycakes, come to grab a fresh bag of chowder powder. What do you do?"

At this point the player has a few choices, but let's suppose that, whatever they do, it fails on a 6 or less. And so the GM narrates that Pattycakes spots them and screams.

I assume that DW could play out in a pretty similar sort of way.

Click to expand...