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

[Maxperson]

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.

It doesn't exist until after I establish it as a fact, but it isn't in a state of both existing and not existing at the same time until observed(the die is rolled to pick a lock). That cook is going to be beyond that door or not BEFORE the lockpicking starts. That's not a quantum cook.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Thanks for engaging with the example.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I've been thinking and this seems like a good springboard.

Why is a Random Table to determine the Cook's presence not quantum? Say 1-20 the cook is there and 21-100 no one is there. Why isn't this a quantum scenario? I don't think it is either, but curious on where you see the differences.

 

[Maxperson]

I've been thinking and this seems like a good springboard.

Why is a Random Table to determine the Cook's presence not quantum? Say 1-20 the cook is there and 21-100 no one is there. Why isn't this a quantum scenario? I don't think it is either, but curious on where you see the differences.

I explained it above to Hussar, but the reason it's not quantum is that I'm going to roll for encounters before the party even camps for the night. I check random encounters days in advance of party rests when I know where they are going, and for rooms before they get there when I know where they are headed in the house/dungeon/castle/whatever. I'm not going to be like, "You open the door and (dice clatter) there's an encounter with a cook!"

Being established before the door is opened prevents it from being a quantum situation. The cook exists or not prior to the door opening.

 

[FrogReaver]

I explained it above to Hussar, but the reason it's not quantum is that I'm going to roll for encounters before the party even camps for the night. I check random encounters days in advance of party rests when I know where they are going, and for rooms before they get there when I know where they are headed in the house/dungeon/castle/whatever. I'm not going to be like, "You open the door and (dice clatter) there's an encounter with a cook!"

Being established before the door is opened prevents it from being a quantum situation. The cook exists or not prior to the door opening.

I see. The basic premise being that if it's instantiated early enough then you can adequately account for it in relation to the players actions?

 

[Maxperson]

I see. The basic premise being that if it's instantiated early enough then you can adequately account for it in relation to the players actions?

If it's pre-established it can't be quantum, because its existence isn't predicated on what the PCs do or what the players roll.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Can one not mechanically optimize characters in the 'typical games using fail forward'?

 

[FrogReaver]

If it's pre-established it can't be quantum, because its existence isn't predicated on what the PCs do or what the players roll.

Was it quantum before it was preestablished?

 

[Maxperson]

Was it quantum before it was preestablished?

I don't think so. The people encountering it aren't the ones generating it in the way the person opening the box are determining the state of the quantum cat. The DM(universe) is determining it.

It's a fine line, though, so I can see why Hussar would think it's the same.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think so. The people encountering it aren't the ones generating it in the way the person opening the box are determining the state of the quantum cat. The DM(universe) is determining it.

It's a fine line, though, so I can see why Hussar would think it's the same.

Regardless of play techniques the GM is determining it. The question is based on what principles, priorities and constraints.