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

[Micah Sweet]

For sure. The bulk of the issue is that a large subset of players don't like the idea that the GM is just "making things up"; they don't want to see any sort of narrative "contrivance". They want to imagine the setting exists outside of the shared playspace at the table.

Techniques that let the table see the sausage being made, as it were, and that the setting is just the GM imagining things aren't appreciated. The pain of the "quantum cook" is being reminded that the GM is just making stuff up.

Yeah. That's a big problem for me, but how things are made up is a bigger one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you can wrap them up from a hospital bed, sure. Lethal radiation exposure doesn't leave you walking around fine until you drop dead. It gives you radiation sickness that keeps getting worse until you die.

No, but you probably have a little time.

 

[AlViking]

Define particularly challenging? It’s doing a lot of work here.



Linear does not equal railroad

If feels more like a railroad to me if every obstacle must be overcome in a specific way to the point where even a failure must be turned into a success.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, my settings theoretically have billions of NPCs that "exist" in the setting. But the only ones that matter are the ones that actually interact with the PCs.

This is where playstyle and preference make all the difference. My setting actually has billions of NPCs that exist within it. This matters to me because...

1) The NPC isn't popping into existence for the sake of the PCs to interact with. That NPC existed in its own right before the PCs got there.

2) Some of us run living worlds where NPCs that the PCs never interact with are doing things that have an impact on play, whether directly or through rumors. Those NPCs matter even if the PCs never meet them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. It matters to people that it's not being made up at the moment. I don't why that's the issue, but it is THE issue.

You don't know why this bothers people because we have different expectations of play.

 

[Yaarel]

Players opting to get on the rail doesn't make it not a railroad. If everything the players do propels them down the same path towards the same goal no matter what they try or whether they succeed or fail, that's a railroad,

If your interpretation of Fail Forward is true, then narrative play is far more likely to end up railroading the players than traditional play is.

I kind of agree with − if there is only one rail − then it is still a railroad.

If the players can get on and off the rail easily, then it is an "amusement ride" in a "theme park".


But if there are several rails leading to the objective, then it isnt really a railroad. Often enough, players can surprise the DM by achieving the objective in a way that DM didnt expect.

In the context of "failing forward", the understanding is that the setback causes the players a feeling of helplessness, and they are at loss for what to do next. Then the DM needs to nudge them into a way that the DM has in mind toward the objective.

When players are at a loss, it means that the DM isnt being clear enough about what players can and cant do in this world. Like in a videogame, the player moves the cursor over an object, and some objects that are interactable glow with an aura and other objects are inert and dont glow and are merely part of the scenery. The DM needs to show the players what parts of the scene are glowing with an aura, that the players can click on to interact in a way forward. When players are confident and know what they want to accomplish and a general sense of how to go about it, that is the ideal. But if the players are at a loss, the DM needs to step up.

 

[Maxperson]

Define particularly challenging? It’s doing a lot of work here.



Linear does not equal railroad

It's not linear if they are being forced down a path. Linear is in one direction, but the PCs can get off/are not forced. Fail forward where the PCs are forced to succeed even with failed rolls and no matter what they try, is railroading. Hell, what they try doesn't even matter at that point. Only their goal matters, because they'll be forced towards it no matter what.

PC: I pop the hinges off the door so we can get through it.
(one failed roll later)
DM: The hinges are on the other side of the door, but somehow the door opens anyway and you get through. Or the door doesn't open, but somehow you still end up on the other side because that's towards your goal.

"Not particularly challenging" wasn't my term, but it implies fairly easy to get past.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that's slightly reductive, that's also part of a set of principled restrictions on the GM's power, and it's part of the board state players make moves on. There's more going on than just moving some imagination from prep to at the table.

There's been a long-running argument that principled restrictions on the GM's power don't count unless you can look them up and cite them in the rulebook.

 

[TwoSix]

You don't know this bothers people because we have different expectations of play.

Oh, I know it bothers people, sort of like how I know lots of people don’t like spicy food. I just can’t make myself feel empathy for it.

 

[Enrahim]

If there's nothing particularly challenging about entering the house, there really shouldn't be a roll. The DM should just narrate the entrance and play should go from there.

The challenging part is the unnoticed part If anything I would say the dilemma here is if it is the stealth skill or the thief tools skill that is essential for determining the level of silence the character can achieve during their lockpicking?