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

The Firebird said:

You are arguing against a position I do not hold.


True.

Click to expand...

Then I am simply jumping off your point. This whole notion of "quantum" encounter is just more smoke and mirrors trying to pretend that a particular methodology is somehow distinct from others when it isn't. As shown by:

Maxperson said:

If the cook is only there because of the lockpick roll, yes.

Improv =/= quantum. Existing and not existing until after a die is rolled = quantum.

Again, fail forward isn't relevant. I'm talking about those of us who avoid fail forward, either the correct or incorrect versions. I haven't seen anyone on my side of the issue who used fail forward of any interpretation, so I'm talking about all of them. We don't connect whether the cook is there or not to the lockpick roll.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but, in what way is improv =/= to quantum? After all, in improv, nothing exists until after a fact is established. That cook will absolutely not be anywhere in the notes or whatnot of the DM until after the failed lock pick roll. The second the DM adds anything to the setting in response to a failed (or successful for that matter) roll is always quantum. Random encounters are the clearest example of quantum. Those trolls on the road didn't exist until the PC's spent X amount of time traveling on that road. And I know they didn't exist, because it was a purely random die roll that brought them into play. A different die roll would result in a completely different encounter or even no encounter at all.

There is zero difference between "Random encounter 3/day, 1 in 6" and "a cook appears after you unlock the lock">

Faolyn said:

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

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...

I don't speak for @The Firebird , but I do make stuff up. Usually, however, it's in prep as opposed to at the table (although sometimes that happens too). Tables are great for when you just need an answer quickly, though they're also handy in prep.

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...

Sure, but there's those differing expectations rearing their ugly head again.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Less fiction, more clarity!

Hmmm, it's hard to analyze that in a general sense, but say looking at a version of the lock picking example, the attempt fails, the GM FFs the character into the house, and makes a soft move by putting a cook into the scene. This one doesn't seem like such a case, even on a DW 7-9, you are still in a position to succeed, you just need to act to avert the obvious hard move that's coming.

Click to expand...

It seems exactly like that kind of case to me?

I get the cook wasn't introduced at the same moment the hard move occurs, but making the process into 2 steps by first introducing the cook and then a hard move with the cook doesn't actually solve the issue I'm describing - though it does make for an infinitely better play than introducing the cook and the hard move with the cook all as one move. The issue I'm describing isn't based on the cook introduction and hard move being all at once as one move. The issue is how the cook was introduced in the first place - namely that the cook was only introduced into the scene due to the die failure. On a success the cook wouldn't have been there. I completely understand why you do that and why someone would like this, it makes for dynamic fiction with twists and turns that can mostly and easily be generated in the moment. I like those aspects too. I'm sympathetic to what such systems are trying to do because I like that concept ALOT. But as with most everything, those techniques have drawbacks as well. For me, those drawbacks make the cost more than I'm willing to pay (at least for anything more than as a change of pace system). The insistence by some (not you so much today) that there either aren't drawbacks or that the drawbacks are objectively worth the price is where I push back.

pemerton said:

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

Click to expand...

They've said "random table" and are against the idea of the dice creating "quantum cooks", meaning that the GM makes up something in response to the player's actions and die rolls. So, probably not. It's more things like "100 random NPCs in a bar".

Which is why I find it so weird. Tables are fine in doses, since they can provide some inspiration if you're truly out, but I can't imagine relying on them so heavily.

Faolyn said:

They've said "random table" and are against the idea of the dice creating "quantum cooks", meaning that the GM makes up something in response to the player's actions and die rolls. So, probably not. It's more things like "100 random NPCs in a bar".

Which is why I find it so weird. Tables are fine in doses, since they can provide some inspiration if you're truly out, but I can't imagine relying on them so heavily.

Click to expand...

I love tables like the ones in Stonetop that are the start of something appropriate for the region or site in question, but are meant to be more creativity starters. Eg: a table of what we find here: is it a change in terrain? A Discovery? Signs of a threat? Useful flora?

I found the large list of OSR style ones cool to read, but a struggle in play in comparison.

Most of that winds up being useful to prompt that most excellent of GM Moves: Ask Questions and Build On The Answers.

Of note: Harper has the best rendition of this I’ve seen under his Ask Questions GM Action. That did more to spur me forward on the whole possibility space contained there then anything else. Wish I knew that you could just keep asking stuff directly of players years ago.

The Firebird said:

No, that is not what I'm saying.

Click to expand...

Then what are you saying?

The Firebird said:

Usually the random table will not dictate the result entirely, and the DM will interpret it in context.

I can see the objections now--isn't that just the DM making things up? I'll invoke Aristotle's idea of virtue as a mean between two extremes here--on the one hand, no DM control, and on the other, total DM control. The point is the balance these.

Click to expand...

The GM making stuff up is not the GM having total control. It's just the GM making stuff up. What the GM does with the stuff determines the level of their control.

As an example, you talked about an arctic environment. Whether the GM chooses a storm or rolls randomly to determine a storm doesn't matter--the storm exists. If the GM wanted total control, for the storm to be dangerous to the PCs, or to drive them in a certain directly, all they have to do is make it that way--any difficulties are just a bit too high to be readily rolled, weather-related injuries appear just a little faster than they would normally, the wind is moving too hard for the PCs to travel except in the directions the GM want them to go, and so on. Or vice versa. It's a terrible storm, but the PCs survival is actually because the GM wanted them to, not because of what they rolled or what actions they took.

The Firebird said:

I disagree. This is not my experience when I'm DMing. When I have more time to think I can make the encounters better reflect the world.

Click to expand...

Most people do, both in game and in life in general. However, in order to run a game and keep the game's flow moving, you have to learn to think on your feet. You can do a lot of prep ahead of time, sure--there's nothing wrong with having a lot of encounters ahead of time--but you don't have to prep everything. Certainly not things that can be winged.

You know what monsters live in the arctic. If you don't, then look through your monster books, choose which monsters seem cool to you, and remember their names. You know what types of people who can be found in a town. If you have a noble's estate looking over the town, you don't need to name the cook and establish their routine. If it becomes necessary for there to be a cook, there's a cook.

(Also, in medieval times, kitchen staff usually slept in the kitchen. I looked it up. The idea of separate bedroom for everyone, even staff, is a relatively modern invention. Before that, they all just piled together.)

Micah Sweet said:

I don't speak for @The Firebird , but I do make stuff up. Usually, however, it's in prep as opposed to at the table (although sometimes that happens too). Tables are great for when you just need an answer quickly, though they're also handy in prep.

Click to expand...

Yes, but relying so heavily on randomness to the point of being unwilling to make things up is a bit of a problem.

All I know is, I wouldn't want to play in a game where everything was either prepped or random. I'd feel like I was torn between computer-like efficiency at the expensive of RPGs as an artform, and lolrandomness.

zakael19 said:

I love tables like the ones in Stonetop that are the start of something appropriate for the region or site in question, but are meant to be more creativity starters. Eg: a table of what we find here: is it a change in terrain? A Discovery? Signs of a threat? Useful flora?

I found the large list of OSR style ones cool to read, but a struggle in play in comparison.

Most of that winds up being useful to prompt that most excellent of GM Moves: Ask Questions and Build On The Answers.

Of note: Harper has the best rendition of this I’ve seen under his Ask Questions GM Action. That did more to spur me forward on the whole possibility space contained there then anything else. Wish I knew that you could just keep asking stuff directly of players years ago.

Click to expand...

In general, I use the more random tables, like the OSR ones, as sort of random generators in my head. In that if I need an idea, I might remember one I saw on a table and use that, as you say, as a creativity starter.

Faolyn said:

Yes, but relying so heavily on randomness to the point of being unwilling to make things up is a bit of a problem.

All I know is, I wouldn't want to play in a game where everything was either prepped or random. I'd feel like I was torn between computer-like efficiency at the expensive of RPGs as an artform, and lolrandomness.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone means all or nothing about this discussion. It's just the hyperbole of spirited discourse.