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

[hawkeyefan]

Eh, no. Weak justification after the fact doesn't mean that they went looking for herbs during that trip. They decided that they wanted herbs for something in the present and are asking to retcon in herb searching. That is far different than roleplaying out herb searching. They are two very different things.

Well, no, they’re really not that different. Because in neither case did anyone actually go into a forest and collect herbs.

In both cases, you have a player declaring that they’d like their character to find herbs.

 

[pemerton]

@zakael19 appears to be telling people that their analysis of their own feelings, when they chose to make one, is invalid

I took @zakael19 to be making a version of the point I'm also making - namely, that if part of the rule for when to roll is provided that either outcome - success or failure - is interesting, then it's not implausible that something interesting follows from every roll of the dice.

 

[pemerton]

Well, no, they’re really not that different. Because in neither case did anyone actually go into a forest and collect herbs.

Wild stuff!

 

[hawkeyefan]

My group came close to trying that once - but a space-time vortex started to form above the table, and so we though better of it and just had the PCs continue on short of arrows . . .

On behalf of all of reality… thank you!

 

[SableWyvern]

I took @zakael19 to be making a version of the point I'm also making - namely, that if part of the rule for when to roll is provided that either outcome - success or failure - is interesting, then it's not implausible that something interesting follows from every roll of the dice.

It's plainly evident that, for many of you, it is not implausible. I have stated that I understand this again, and again, and again. As far as I can see, this is not in dispute by anyone. You don't find it implausible. I believe you. You have nothing to prove to me.

Yet, for some reason, there are a number of posters who refuse to accept that for some of us, it does seem implausible, and you must all keep hammering this point in order to try and convince us that we are looking at it wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's plainly evident that, for many of you, it is not implausible. I have stated that I understand this again, and again, and again. As far as I can see, this is not in dispute by anyone.

Yet, for some reason, there are a number of posters who refuse to accept that for some of us, it does seem implausible, and you must all keep hammering this point in order to try and convince us that we are looking at it wrong.

I think because you aren’t refuting the idea of only rolling when something interesting will happen.

I expect that’s not a rule you play by. You likely call for rolls with some other criteria… like “only roll when the outcome is in doubt”, maybe.

If that’s the rule about rolling dice, then sure, it may be implausible that every outcome would be interesting.

But what people are saying is that if the rule is “don’t roll unless the outcome will be interesting” then it’s not implausible for rolls to produce interesting results… the rule says they must!

Now, perhaps such a rule wouldn’t work for you… you may feel that having interesting things occur as frequently as such a rule would dictate to stretch believability. That’s my reading of what you’ve said… but it’s not entirely clear. I don’t think it stretches believability… it’s probably that rolls will be less frequent, but individually more weighty.

But really, this just seems like another instance of judging one approach through the lens of another. Like you’re assuming the frequency of rolls to be similar and so you’re assuming implausibility based on that assumption.

 

[pemerton]

It's plainly evident that, for many of you, it is not implausible. I have stated that I understand this again, and again, and again. As far as I can see, this is not in dispute by anyone. You don't find it implausible. I believe you. You have nothing to prove to me.

Yet, for some reason, there are a number of posters who refuse to accept that for some of us, it does seem implausible, and you must all keep hammering this point in order to try and convince us that we are looking at it wrong.

For my part, I am trying to get clarity.

For instance, are you assuming some version of a D&D rule for when to roll? Are you saying that a rule which only called for a roll when both success and failure are interesting would be an implausible rule?

EDIT: @hawkeyefan made the same point as mine just upthread.

 

[pemerton]

Weak justification after the fact doesn't mean that they went looking for herbs during that trip. They decided that they wanted herbs for something in the present and are asking to retcon in herb searching. That is far different than roleplaying out herb searching. They are two very different things.

To add to @hawkeyefan's reply not far upthread:

It is true that resolving some searching via a die roll, as part of the table catching up on what happened during a journey, is different from roleplaying out a search for herbs. That's part of the point about eliding less interesting stuff.

But it's not true that the first approach doesn't mean the PCs went looking for herbs during the trip. Of course they did - that's what the roll resolves!

And as hawkeyefan already pointed out, neither approach involves the players looking for herbs.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think because you aren’t refuting the idea of only rolling when something interesting will happen.

I expect that’s not a rule you play by. You likely call for rolls with some other criteria… like “only roll when the outcome is in doubt”, maybe.

If that’s the rule about rolling dice, then sure, it may be implausible that every outcome would be interesting.

But what people are saying is that if the rule is “don’t roll unless the outcome will be interesting” then it’s not implausible for rolls to produce interesting results… the rule says they must!

Now, perhaps such a rule wouldn’t work for you… you may feel that having interesting things occur as frequently as such a rule would dictate to stretch believability. That’s my reading of what you’ve said… but it’s not entirely clear. I don’t think it stretches believability… it’s probably that rolls will be less frequent, but individually more weighty.

I have played in a fashion where rolls tend to be extremely rare since the 80s or 90s. If there is no combat, it would not be unusual for there to be no more than two or three player-facing rolls in an 8 hour session. When I'm running an OSR game, the only rolls the players are likely make outside of combat are saves.

The "problem" is not that I am used to to running games where there are lots of rolls, and my opinion would change if only I understood that I can run a game that involves fewer rolls at more critical times.

The problem is the philosophy behind the mechanics does does not suit my style of play, in part because I feel it stretches plausability. Even if only truly critical events (however you choose to establish what's critical) use the roll, the process still stretches credulity for me.

If I really try, I can almost see how I could accept the die results as plausible, if I really, truly, only called for a roll when there is a clear and obvious case of logical, plausible, interesting outcomes regardless or pass or fail. Note that this is not about frequency of rolls, it's about the entire reason for rolling. But at this point, I would see the process of when to call for a die roll being at odds with the role I want for dice in the game. So, yay, you can consider yourself a winner, because maybe I would see it as plausible, it's just that you've now turned the game into something where it no longer matters if it's plausible, because I've already lost all interest anyway.

I do not need to be saved. I do not need to be show how awesome fail forward is, if only I truly get it. I do not need to alter the rate at which I call for rolls. And you'll be just fine, even if I never share your views on fail forward. But, if it really matters that much to you that I agree that fail forward, when used in the way all right-thinking gamers should, is always going to be plausible, then feel free to take my comments above as proof of your rightness in this matter.

But really, this just seems like another instance of judging one approach through the lens of another. Like you’re assuming the frequency of rolls to be similar and so you’re assuming implausibility based on that assumption.

I mean, you're definitely making a lot of assumptions about which games I've run, how I've run them, and how I would feel if I ran them differently. And you're definitely making erroneous assumptions about how often I call for rolls.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

No game is entirely GM or player driven. Teamwork makes the dream work.

Exactly, the DM, and players agree on the game they are going to play ideally before the game starts. Less than ideal, but perfectly acceptable and far more common is to work through the incompatible play and arrive at a great game in spite of play style incompatibilities.

Communication is key, like so many things in life.

Problems arise when any one or more of the group starts playing a different game. It doesn't matter if it is a sandbox, railroad, combat focused, heavy role playing, murder hobos, or any other play style. The rub comes when someone agrees to play a game they end up not playing whatever the reason is.

Not every table is right for every player nor is every player right for every table. Forcing a fit regardless of the reason is not a good idea. No play is better than bad play.