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

[AlViking]

People are responding as if the people who are taking exception to the fail forward example are trying to sell them on fail forward as technique, rather than show why we view the example as reductive analysis of other people's play. The cook example is representative of poor use of fail forward as a technique because the example does not include any of the telegraphing that goes along with it and the consequence does not follow from the established fiction in any meaningful way. Presenting fail forward as a technique with accuracy and grace might not be important to those objecting it to it, but their failure to do so ought to be something they are accountable for because this sort of misrepresentation spreads. I know because I have had to address these concerns with players I've recruited into my games who get false impressions of various play techniques to online discussions this one.

If you have a better example provide it.

 

[Maxperson]

That isn't a point of contention. Nobody thinks you actually secretly want to do it.

The points of contention seem to be whether the stated reasons for not liking the technique are:

1) based on the realities of the technique, instead of false impressions/strawmen.

2) self/internally consistent.



So, a question - do your players never meaningfully interact with things in the world that aren't explicitly in your notes before play begins?

Of course they do. It's impossible for a DM to detail out even 5% of a world, so there are going to be gaps and things the DM forgot or didn't know to consider before players ask about them.

The goal, though, is to minimize those occasions, not increase the number of them by embracing fail forward.

 

[pemerton]

This is explicitly more quantum than the other. In the wandering monster case, the events are independent--your skill at lock picking does not affect your chances of encountering a monster. In the fail forward case, they are dependent--a skilled thief encounters fewer wanderers.

The thief's observations play a role where they didn't before, hence quantum.

This seems to confuse an imaginary person - the thief - with a real world social event - the conversation and rolling of dice at the table.

 

[Faolyn]

Not in the Aristotelian sense. This is different from me saying they are morally wrong.

But yeah, if I played a game with a DM who improvised everything, after I would say something like "X was a poor GM. You could tell they were making it all up on the fly and it felt like my choices didn't matter".

What if...

You couldn't tell they were making it up?

You could tell they were making it up, but did so in a way that made the game compelling and fun?

What if.... someone played in your game, and said afterwards that you were a poor GM because everything was preprogrammed or rolled randomly and therefore it felt like their choices didn't matter. Would you consider that to be a valid complaint?

Also, why would you assume your choices didn't matter? If the GM is making it all up--which, by the way, every GM does when they write the adventure in the first place--then your choices are the most important thing, because that's what the GM is relying on.

 

[Faolyn]

So the players succeed on all of their checks--where is the cook?

They didn't hear or see the PCs, obviously.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, we all understand that. The double duty is the part we dislike.

Sure, but why? It's a dice roll that tells us the cook is there, which is something that you said you're fine with. Prefer, actually.

 

[FrogReaver]

This seems to confuse an imaginary person - the thief - with a real world social event - the conversation and rolling of dice at the table.

Why the heck would you think anyone ever confuse an imaginary thief for real people at the table? Are we idiots? Don’t answer that. But out of all the reoccurring criticisms this one absolutely boggles my mind.

 

[The Firebird]

It's about the outcome, though, isn't it? They failed the roll... so something bad happens. If one GM narrates it so that the something bad is totally unconnected to the lockpick, and another narrates it so that there is a connection... I'd say the second GM did a better job.

Yes, of course.

If the players had decided to go in through the second floor, then they'd not likely encounter a cook. She'd likely be in the kitchen, or quietly in bed... who knows? She's not involved at this point.

For me, she is involved. She is in the house somewhere, and that will determine the consequences of the players actions.

The better way to look at it is on a successful roll, things go well, on an unsuccessful roll, things go poorly.

This sums up my main problem with the approach. It makes everything dependent on the rolls rather than player choices. For a bad roll, the complications can be a cook, or a hound, or the Lord, or whatever...but it doesn't really matter, because none of these things existed beforehand.

 

[The Firebird]

This seems to confuse an imaginary person - the thief - with a real world social event - the conversation and rolling of dice at the table.

How so?

 

[Umbran]

So the players succeed on all of their checks--where is the cook?

Indeed. We can take that further, to make the point more clear.

The kitchen, which was explicitly placed in the scenario, requires a cook. And cooking fuel. And food. But the map probably forgot to include cordwood, or what exactly is in the pantry.

So, we have setting elements we know should exist, but aren't specified before play begins.

When the situation warrants, a GM is within rights to specify them as they deem appropriate, even without a chart, right?