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

[TwoSix]

This I think is why some people don't like fail forward. Your expectations of play are different.

I know this seems obvious, but for some reason we all want to re-litigate "my preference is different from your preference" over and over ad infinitum.

I look at it this way.

Saying "this technique works if you use Assumption A. This same technique fails if you Assumption B." is useful, objective information about game design.

Saying "I can't enjoy Assumption A, I can only play games with Assumption B." is a preference.

I couldn't care less whether or not you use or personally like Assumption A or B. I only care that when we discuss game design, people are aware that these assumptions exist and need to be part of the discussion.

Because 99% of the time on these forums when people say "This technique doesn't work", what they mean is "Using this technique violates an implicit understanding I have of how TTRPGs are supposed to work."

 

[AlViking]

Are you an expert on satellite imaging? Or do you rely on authorities to assure you that Google street view is an accurate representation?

The real question is did they account for the fact that the people are driving upside down because they're in Australia?

 

[TwoSix]

You're the expert. Why the heck would you need to run the game to talk about such a scenario?

Scenario:

 

[TwoSix]

The real question is did they account for the fact that the people are driving upside down because they're in Australia?

I just put a setting on my browser to flip the screen whenever I connect to an .au link.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I
Because 99% of the time on these forums when people say "This technique doesn't work", what they mean is "Using this technique violates an implicit understanding I have of how TTRPGs are supposed to work."

Or alternatively, "Using this technique actively works against things I and people like me want out of our gaming experience" without asking the question of whether that's particularly relevant in the hobby as a whole.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I know you're trying to answer but the the thing is that saying "...look back at the setup move(s) you made. What was threatened? What was about to happen, before the PC took action? Follow through on that. Bring the effects on screen. Bring the consequences to fruition." is meaningless to someone who doesn't play the game.

This has nothing particular to do with the game or its rules but with fiction. Essentially Harper's arguing for an equivalent of Chekhov's gun -- the metaphorical gun the GM put on the wall gets fired, the Corleone family moves to crush their enemies, the thing that was foreshadowed earlier in play now happens.

 

[The Firebird]

It is illustrating fail forward.

Failed attempt at kidnap => word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant.

Failed Sing to try and restore my sense of self => harassed by a guard.

Failed Circles hoping that an important Elf will turn up to help me => another guard turns up.

This is what fail forward looks like in play.

Just this text is a more concise summary without the extraneous details.

The whole point is that there are no toy examples. Fail forward, as a technique, assumes characters with motivations and wants, fictional situations laden with threats and promise, etc.

That's what John Harper is illustrating in his examples. I assume they're inadequate somehow, but I don't know in what way.

Harper's examples were fine and what I meant when I said a toy example. Something I don't need to parse paragraphs of unrelated text to understand.

Following from the fiction is a foundational principle for RPGing (outside of the absurdist, I guess). Because Apocalypse World is a complete set of rules, it states it as a principle that the GM is to have regard to in making their moves, whether soft or hard.

In what way? The way @Campbell described it, it meant 'following from the established fiction' where established fiction was things everyone agreed on. Is that what you mean? In that case I don't think it is foundational to all RPGs.

What do you mean by previously didn't exist? If you mean that it is established that a room is empty, then it wouldn't follow from the fiction to narrate it as occupied.

I mean that they were created precisely as a result of the failed roll. If the roll had succeeded, no cook. This bothers me as a player, because it means the choices I made in the approach were less meaningful.

1b - What is the game incentive for the player checking for anyone awake in the house? It seems like the fewer precautionary moves you make the fewer potential obstacles will get put in your path? I presume not making those precautionary moves will typically influence either your failure rate or strength of your effect on some future moves, but it's not clear whether that's necessarily the case and whether the player is informed of those potentialities beforehand.

This is an issue I have. Fewer die rolls = fewer chances for failure = fewer obstacles.

 

[The Firebird]

This has nothing particular to do with the game or its rules but with fiction. Essentially Harper's arguing for an equivalent of Chekhov's gun -- the metaphorical gun the GM put on the wall gets fired, the Corleone family moves to crush their enemies, the thing that was foreshadowed earlier in play now happens.

Which is fine in and of itself but doesn't address the concern that the cook was created due to a failure on an unrelated check.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I look at it this way.

Saying "this technique works if you use Assumption A. This same technique fails if you Assumption B." is useful, objective information about game design.

Saying "I can't enjoy Assumption A, I can only play games with Assumption B." is a preference.

I couldn't care less whether or not you use or personally like Assumption A or B. I only care that when we discuss game design, people are aware that these assumptions exist and need to be part of the discussion.

Because 99% of the time on these forums when people say "This technique doesn't work", what they mean is "Using this technique violates an implicit understanding I have of how TTRPGs are supposed to work."

That's true, but to be honest I don't think a ton of people are all that interested in switching assumptions of play, so beyond acknowledging their existence there doesn't seem to be much more to say at this point, especially after 11k+ posts. The lines have been largely drawn.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Scenario:

Oh no! I had happily forgotten that monstrosity existed! Now it'll be back in my head!