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

[Eric V]

Sigh.

We can RP characters doing the smart thing and taking the path of lesser risk and-or resistance to achieve their ends, can't we?

My friend needs saving at the top of the cliff. Do I foolishly risk myself climbing so maybe both of us die, or do I do the smart thing and ensure at least one of us (and, ultimately, maybe both of us) live?

We need to get into the castle. There's six armed guards on the drawbridge and if we take them on, the reinforcements that'll come running will slaughter us. Do we foolishly face-charge them and hope for the best, or do we do the smart thing and try to find a back way in?

No, we can let him die and ressurrect him later. Your words.

 

[Eric V]

Something related to this that I occasionally think about is whether games ought to strive to tell the sorts of stories we've grown used to from the Western dramatic tradition? Given the switch from linear, prescripted, active-author / passive-audience to non-linear, dynamic, the lusory-trinity (each player as author, actor, audience)... why do I expect the stories worth telling to remain the same?

Players differ on this. I would say that most folk that I play with would agree with you, but some straightforwardly would not. They're not thinking in terms of an expected dramatic climax.

There's probably a discussion to be had about that, sure, but the scenario I described above? Makes sense in a kind of comedic, 3-Stooges kind of way, but not really any other.

 

[clearstream]

There's probably a discussion to be had about that, sure, but the scenario I described above? Makes sense in a kind of comedic, 3-Stooges kind of way, but not really any other.

I'm thinking of the way those favouring it would narrate it, rather than the way that someone disfavouring it would. To me your "comedic" characterisation arises out of the latter.

 

[Eric V]

Sigh.

We can RP characters doing the smart thing and taking the path of lesser risk and-or resistance to achieve their ends, can't we?

My friend needs saving at the top of the cliff. Do I foolishly risk myself climbing so maybe both of us die, or do I do the smart thing and ensure at least one of us (and, ultimately, maybe both of us) live?

We need to get into the castle. There's six armed guards on the drawbridge and if we take them on, the reinforcements that'll come running will slaughter us. Do we foolishly face-charge them and hope for the best, or do we do the smart thing and try to find a back way in?

This is strawman crap.

 

[Eric V]

I'm thinking of the way those favouring it would narrate it, rather than the way that someone disfavouring it would. To me your "comedic" characterisation arises out of the latter.

In the scenario I describe above? Where the paladin rolls a 1 and as a result determined by his GM, he falls to his death?

Yeah, I'd like to see that described as something other than comedy too.

 

[Eric V]

And yet when I said the player can always choose not to climb the cliff you mocked me for it.

So which is it - can they choose to bail out, or can they not?

Retreating from combat: still engaging with the game and the story.

Avoiding any activity that has a 1 in 20 chance of instant death: Smart and cautious...but not engaging with the game and story.

 

[Enrahim]

One way I think about it is appearances over sessions. That is because the probability alone doesn't tell us much unless we also consider the frequency of tests against it.

Say a group likes to roll dice a lot so they have a roll of the sort we're thinking about every 5 minutes for 4 hours = 48 per session. 1:400 means they will experience the feared result about once over ten sessions. If they play weekly, that's about once a quarter year (taking into account what I've experienced as the normal ratios of skipped sessions).

That's a palpable degree less than 1:20 where they'll experience it twice a session. Would it make much difference if it were halved again? I think that depends mostly on the third factor that should ordinarily be considered, which is severity. Here the severity is character death if I'm reading correctly.

It seems to me that character death from a cause like this any more than twice a year might feel rather too much! On that basis I'd agree with @Thomas Shey. One response would be to suppose the group roll far less often for this sort of thing, e.g. if it's once an hour of play the observed incidences per year decline dramatically.

I love math! In my 30 years in the hobby I cannot remember once there being done any climb check where the stakes has been more than 2d6 falling damage. Let us say my memory is a bit foggy and this actually has happened 2 times. That mean we are looking at about once every 6000 year that this hypothetical scenario is happening in my group. I don't feel this seem excessively often.

And even if we look at other dangerous skill check scenarios, how often do those come up? I think have experienced about 3 instances of dangerous swimming, and these are having rules that generally specify a relatively large number of failures before it turn fatal. A single 1 on disarming a trap is generally interpreted as setting the trap off, but I guess there are noone seeing this being a huge problem in a dungeon crawler? Nat 1 on social checks can cause a combat, but there you have the combat system providing a buffer.

So I find the idea of a game where every 5 minutes someone is doing anything as dangerous as climbing a sheer maxed out 20d6 cliff without any solid rules safety net as pretty hard core. If someone is indeed playing this style, I would find a death only twice a year absurdly rare!

 

[Campbell]

When talking about fiction-first games the fiction refers to the shared/established fictional situation the table has agreed upon. It does not include the conceptions that the GM and other players might have about the setting or their characters. Because those conceptions are not meant to be binding on play - things not revealed on screen are not meant to be binding or held on to by any participant. This is a fundamental part of the overall structure of play that needs to be understood.

Redefining the fiction to be inclusive of all our personal conceptions of the things we "own" is at odds with gameplay structures that are fundamentally grounded on the idea of a shared fiction.

It's just fundamentally unfair to redefine terms under someone's feet and accuse them of not meeting the standard they set. Start and end with the fiction means to start and end with the established fiction. Basically, anything you do as a GM should follow on from what is established and move the fiction forward establishing new truths. There is the bit in the middle where the GM is actively making decisions about the fiction, they are about to introduce in reference to gameplay concerns for the particular game and the mechanics that apply.

"Fiction First" has never meant simulation or individual ownership of setting or character. It just means that we start with evaluating the established fictional situation to determine which mechanics apply and constrain the moves the GM will make and that it must result in changing the fictional state and not just the mechanical state of things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What some trad DMs, to eliminate their own bias, is assign odds and then roll a die to see if the cook is in the kitchen or wherever.

But this of course simply kicks the bias up to a higher plane of abstraction: assigning the odds. Which is already a significant domain of bias anyway. That very thing is the reason why I have to use such cumbersome phrases to explain why it is necessary that a meaningful chance of a result be possible. Because if you simply say "a chance" without requiring that it be "meaningful" (and you will then 100% guaranteed get grilled on what "meaningful" means!), then the GM is free to make it "roll three consecutive 20s" or the like. That gives the fig-leaf excuse that there was, technically, a chance for success! It was just so fantastically low that it will functionally not happen.

Much of this earlier part of this discussion the Narrative-pro posters were asking what restrictions/restraints exist on the Trad-GM side of the aisle when it comes to GM decides. Well here we see a conservative application of 2 techniques on the GM decides.

I'm not sure I follow. You mention "2 techniques" but I only see one: GM deciding what the odds should be. Which, as stated above, is simply putting the GM's bias at the level of odds-deciding rather than outcome-deciding. (And it's not like odds-deciding isn't taking quite a swipe at outcome-deciding either! The two are deeply related.)

The Trad GMs do not feel as comfortable mixing fictions in one roll, and this is likely because the stakes of the roll have been set:
Success or Failure on the lockpick. To mix further fiction into the roll may feel to the Trad GM as cheating or playing loosey-goosey with the fiction. If the stakes on the roll included that other fiction then I do not think the Trad GMs would have an issue but one should take note of how a call for checks arise in a Trad GM.

Is it "mixing fictions"? I'm not sure I entirely accept that. In Dungeon World, you have an actual "pick locks" move from the Thief playbook ("Tricks of the Trade"); that doesn't mean nobody else can pick locks, it just means that you have to be a Thief (or have a similar/related playbook) in order to use that move's benefits, which are sizable relative to more generic options. For groups that don't have a Thief, picking a lock is almost certainly an example of Defy Danger, assuming it's happening in a context where you can't just take your time (no difference there, I know folks here have said that if there's no pressure there's no need to ask for a roll). Defy Danger is a lot more risky than context-specific moves, because it is something that captures a larger slice of the fiction than context-specific moves would. Just like how 1e's Thief Skills make Thieves better at lockpicking, but don't actually prevent others from attempting to pick locks....they just do so knowing that they face greater risk.

Which, I think, is very helpful for this analysis. Your presentation biases things inherently toward the "traditional GM's" perspective--that their classification of what actions relate to what things is the true baseline, and anyone else's is some kind of deviation away from that. But if we understand the fiction as simply...one whole continuous thing, which we then happen to choose to slice into different slices based on what rules we have available and what choices the GM and the players each make, then there is no bias in any particular direction. Instead, it presents the "traditional GM" as favoring a slicing which generally, but not always, slices very finely and captures only a very small chunk of the fiction in any particular action, while other approaches do not have as much of a fixed pattern and instead cut out a wider range of chunks, depending on context and applicability.

Under those lights, Fail Forward says, "Failure when you often require rolls to be only very small slices of the fiction has a bad tendency to lead to play just grinding to a halt. It's useful to have some rolls that are narrow slices and others that are thicker slices, so that the breadth and complexity of failure is more available to you as GM." And that comes with a second, distinct but still quite nice, perk: Moves like Defy Danger are a living, breathing example of "less is more". You don't need complex climbing rules or special rules for lockpicking that massively privilege only those who get investment in that system or various other things. One rule covers many situations because it can slice the fiction broadly or narrowly as needed.

GM: You test the door. It is locked.
Rogue: I pull out my lockpicks and attempt to pick it.
GM: Considers if there is risk (time likely). Make a Tool Kit Proficiency check.
....There is no negotiation of additional stakes or complications. The rules do not necessarily speak of it either.

This is very different in a Narrative game I suspect.

It's...hard to make a comparison because, at least with the game I'm familiar with, that first answer would have to flow from some action on the players' part, and the Rogue's "I...attempt to pick it" is...not ideal? That is, I would expect a more in-fiction statement about the actions involved. Something like this:

Spoiler

GM: You arrive at the edge of Rookwood Manor, its gloomy gables looming off in the distance. Mantling the hedge wasn't that hard. Of course, Lilia knew the dogs that guard this area were going to be out sick tonight, so someone else wouldn't have found it quite so easy. The grounds are dark and quiet as you pass through. What do you do?
Lilia: I'm keeping my eyes sharp. Watching for any sign of light in the house, checking for a side entrance, that sort of thing. I've got hours to burn, so I take my time checking brick by brick and plank by plank.
GM: Alright, sounds like Discern Realities.
Lilia: ...well, a 9 isn't TOO bad. Let's see..."What here is useful or valuable to me?"
GM: "There is, in fact, a side entrance just as you expected--but, as you also also expected, it's locked."
Lilia: Ahh, my trusty lockpicks. I expect a servant's entrance to have a sturdy but no-nonsense lock--the kind that people trust rather more than they should, just 'cause a shim won't cut it. Picks out, I'm feeling through the tumblers, really romancing it.
GM: Well, you know what you need to do! Remember the +1 forward.
Lilia: ...oh damn, that was almost snake eyes. Thank goodness for that +1!
GM: Alright, here's the deal. Despite expecting nobody to be in the house at this hour, someone clearly IS there, and you can hear them as you're picking. Sounds like the cook might be preparing something for Mr. Rookwood's breakfast in the morning. You thought you had all the time in the world, but now you know you don't. You can get through this lock right now if you use force instead of finesse...but you're going to break something if you do. Either the lock, or the lockpick.
Lilia: ...I can't afford to leave an obvious calling card THIS early. I'll sacrifice the pick to get through now.
GM: Alright. You can still try to pick locks, but until you can get a replacement, you're working with partially improvised tools. Let's call that -1 ongoing to Tricks of the Trade until you can resupply.

So, here, the failure has nothing to do with whether someone is or isn't there--it's rather in what kind of cost Lilia the Thief is willing to take. There IS someone there, regardless, but they'd be blissfully unaware if the Thief had gotten a full success. With a partial success, they had to accept either "suspicion" (a broken lock is sure to raise concerns that someone has broken in) or cost (breaking the lockpick to get through; which here, this GM went with a relatively gentle cost that might snowball many times over, but it could just be "you can't pick locks until you buy new lockpicks" if they preferred.)

 

[Maxperson]

What some trad DMs, to eliminate their own bias, is assign odds and then roll a die to see if the cook is in the kitchen or wherever.

One can expedite the process by deriving the following quick table

01-05 lose x time, lockpicks break (1-2) or gets jammed in the lock (4-6)
06-10 lose x time, fail, can attempt again
11-15 success with complication, you pick the lock but the cook is in the kitchen (1-5) or you drop the lockpicks accidentally making a sound (6)
16+ success no complication

Whether you roll the die independently, one for lockpicking and another for where the cook is or whether you assign it all in one, the difference essentially are the statistical odds of the cook appearing.
I do think mechanics for Trad GMs such as Fail Forward or Success with Complication are a little more hesitant as they like to consider the effects of those techniques on the consistency for fiction and perhaps various gamist principles.
Whereas GMs who are more pro the Narrative have a little more freedom as Fail Foward and Success with Complication inform them where/when they can extend some of their creativity.

Much of this earlier part of this discussion in this thread the Narrative-pro posters were asking what restrictions/restraints exist on the Trad-GM side of the aisle when it comes to GM decides. Well, here we see a conservative application of 2 techniques with the GM decides approach.

The Trad GMs do not feel as comfortable mixing fictions in one roll, and this is likely because the stakes of the roll have been set:
Success or Failure on the lockpick. To mix further fiction into the roll may feel to the Trad GM as cheating or playing loosey-goosey with the fiction particularly because Trad play is not generally player-facing. If the stakes on the roll included that other fiction then I do not think the Trad GMs would have an issue but one should take note of how a call for checks arise in a Trad game.

GM: You test the door. It is locked.
Rogue: I pull out my lockpicks and attempt to pick it.
GM: Considers if there is risk (time likely). Make a Tool Kit Proficiency check. [The GM may not even provide the necessary DCs]
....There is no negotiation of additional stakes or complications. The rules do not necessarily speak of it either.

This is very different in a Narrative game I suspect.

It's not just that the stakes have been set, but more so that the lockpicking attempt has nothing to do with the cook. Being discretely different events means that there should be different rolls to determine each.

Another thing is the level of realism, which may or may not be an issue to any particular traditional DM. For me it is. In order for the cook to be there in the dead of night, the cook would have to have woken up in the middle of the night for some reason, decided to get up rather than try to go back to sleep, then have that wake-up happen to be on the night that the PC is trying to pick the lock, and lastly have the timing be during the brief period where the PC is picking the lock.

There's probably not even a 1% chance of that happening, let alone as high as your chart above indicates, which is well higher than that. Even a 1 in 20 chance of that happening when you pick the lock is too high. Depending on how many people live in the house, there might be a 1 in 20 chance of someone being awake in the middle of the night, but in a house that can afford a chef, there would likely be multiple floors or a very large spread out single floor and the location of that individual could be quite distant from the door.