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

[AlViking]

I've provided many examples. Most are from actual play, but I posted an imagined one involving a cook:

Unless you are also @Campbell , I didn't ask you and I've already commented on your posts.

 

[zakael19]

If not adventures than ongoing narrative development or whatever term you think appropriate. Another game could call it a series of tests or some other verbiage. Doesn't really change anything.

If you look at the other post @pemerton replied to in that comment, and the phrasing of yours, he was reacting to the idea of pre-written adventures.

 

[zakael19]

The only reason I see the threat being introduced is because the game specifies that something has to happen after the player's attempt. I don't care for that kind of decision being forced onto the GM.

No, the game says on a player rolling a 6-, I get to make a move as hard and direct as I want. In this case I looked at my prep for the dungeon, considered the fight they'd had just down the stairs and conversation between Marshall and the rest of the party, and decided that the most fictionally appropriate complication was that the bronze guard dogs had sensed all that nonsense and so I would Reveal an Unwelcome Truth: their advance further into the barrow was not undetected and a threat was alerted.

As a side note, one of my favorite bits under "When to Make a GM Move" in Daggerheart is under "They Give You a Golden Opportunity:"

Sometimes, a PC’s decision gives you the perfect opportunity for a dramatic move—perhaps they move too close to a waiting predator or get distracted while watching for intruders. In these cases, a roll doesn’t prompt your move, but you can still seize the opportunity for a powerful dramatic beat. For example, if the PCs are hiding from a group of thieves while discussing the bandit leader’s plans, a PC might say with dramatic irony, “But surely they won’t look in the eaves of every barn in the district!” In response, you might describe the barn door noisily swinging open as a bandit steps inside, a lit torch in one hand and a sword in the other as they peer into the rafters where the characters are hiding.

Also, earlier in the barrow Marshall had seen the torches light up and said "well, somebody knows we're here..."

Edit: I should note that the absolute core GM Move is "ask questions and build on the answers." Sometimes you just want to heighten tension, so I could've said something like "hey Marshall, when you gaze into the flame what makes you think something is regarding you back in turn?" and like, that's totally cool.

 

[AlViking]

No, the game says on a player rolling a 6-, I get to make a move as hard and direct as I want. In this case I looked at my prep for the dungeon, considered the fight they'd had just down the stairs and conversation between Marshall and the rest of the party, and decided that the most fictionally appropriate complication was that the bronze guard dogs had sensed all that nonsense and so I would Reveal an Unwelcome Truth: their advance further into the barrow was not undetected and a threat was alerted.

As a side note, one of my favorite bits under "When to Make a GM Move" in Daggerheart is under "They Give You a Golden Opportunity:"


Also, earlier in the barrow Marshall had seen the torches light up and said "well, somebody knows we're here..."

As I said "...and decided that the most fictionally appropriate complication...", you had to come up with a complication because the rules said you had to do so. That's what I wouldn't care for, it would feel artificial to me as GM and player.

If it works for you, great. It just tells me I don't need to look into the game any further because it's simply not for me.

 

[zakael19]

As I said "...and decided that the most fictionally appropriate complication...", you had to come up with a complication because the rules said you had to do so. That's what I wouldn't care for, it would feel artificial to me as GM and player.

If it works for you, great. It just tells me I don't need to look into the game any further because it's simply not for me.

Ok dude, whatever. You asked for some examples beyond others of how Fail Forward might work. I wasn't posting them for you to go "I hate that, screw off" but "here's how games can incorporate it since you asked."

It's exhausting having posters like you go "well @pemerton 's examples suck because they're too confusing, and the white-room examples are too contrived, and oh hey look these other examples are too jargony, and oh now that you've translated them I just hate it."

F-ing "No True Fail-Forward" fallacy.

 

[AlViking]

Ok dude, whatever. You asked for some examples beyond others of how Fail Forward might work. I wasn't posting them for you to go "I hate that, screw off" but "here's how games can incorporate it."

It's exhausting having posters like you go "well @pemerton 's examples suck because they're too confusing, and the white-room examples are too contrived, and oh hey look these other examples are too jargony, and oh now that you've translated them I just hate it."

F-ing "No True Fail-Forward" fallacy.

I'm sorry that I offended you it certainly wasn't my intent. I can be curious about how other games and processes work without wanting to use them. As far as the jargon I was attempting to be helpful.

To me the whole "fail-forward" has multiple meanings depending on whom you ask. So I and a few others were trying to discuss it only to get "That's not the way it works at all, why are you misrepresenting it!" But without actual examples there's no way to know that for some people it means X and for others it means Y.

For some people it means that if some action declared fails, it somehow still works but there's a complication like with the lockpicking example. For others it means that because of the structure of the game if a check fails it means that something bad happens just because there is always this back-and-forth between players and GM. The former could apply to a D&D game even if I think there are better options. The latter doesn't really apply to standard D&D because the DM is just having the world react to what the characters do, there is no expectation of that back-and-forth.

So again, I'm sorry if I sounded antagonistic, I'm not trying to be. I'm just not as well versed in other game terminology and approaches.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This "fixed world" game is in my view a very distinctive thing:
In my experience, which when it comes to random encounters is based on the B/X and AD&D rulebooks, wandering monsters tend to be regarded as coming from what is - for game play purposes - an endless supply of such beings.

Not the way I've seen it. There's a limit to how many of any given creature is available to run into on the move. Or at least IMO there should be.

 

[The Firebird]

This "fixed world" game is in my view a very distinctive thing:
In my experience, which when it comes to random encounters is based on the B/X and AD&D rulebooks, wandering monsters tend to be regarded as coming from what is - for game play purposes - an endless supply of such beings.

I think that's true for some older mods, but it's not universal, and I prefer ones where it is not the case. That said, even if there is an endless supply, the existence or nonexistence is still fixed--occurring with a fixed probability--rather than depending on an unrelated skill roll.

And even within the domain of the instrumental, there are ways for choices to matter: different options may enliven different skill rolls, and may thus affect the prospects of success.

Yeah, this was part of my problem with narrative games. The chances of success don't really vary based on approach--as long as you roll well, almost any approach will do--so it became a game of "how can I justify to the DM that I'm using Hunt here?" That's much less interesting than choosing an approach that your character may not be optimal for because it is easier within the fiction. Imo.

And as @Campbell has said, you are putting forward a poor bit of GMing in an attempt to illustrate the limitations of a technique. It's as if I adduced the boring dungeon I build when I was 12 to show how bad OSR play must be. This is why I have invited you, and other posters, to engage with actual examples from actual play, rather than silly examples.

I think everything I posted applies to your cook example. Quoted:

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.

Specifically, Dremmer's cook Pattycakes was only there because of a 7 to 9 on Acting Under Fire. On a 10+, no Pattycakes.

Because the "quantum" label is being applied to a technique. But you refer to the thief - a character in the fiction - as the observer.

In the fiction, the cook is doing whatever the cook is doing, where ever the cook happens to be. The moment and manner of authorship - the thing that happens in the real world, and is being labelled "quantum" - is not a property of things within the fiction.

I'm confused. Quantum was being applied to the cook (or Pattycakes), not the technique. I guess it could apply to the kitchen too. The thief observes the kitchen, and only then is Pattycakes there or not there. Hence, quantum.

 

[Hussar]

We discussed this already...it is better if there is an explicit connection between this and the result. For example, if the failed check causes noise and this attracts the cook, then that's an improvement. However, it doesn't address the core issue of the cook's existence being predicated on a failed lockpicking roll.


See, it is exactly what I see going on. To the players, it appears that their choices would have mattered--"oh no, there is a cook here, we should have gone in through the window". But if they went through the window then there wouldn't have been a cook in the kitchen. It appears the choice matters, but it doesn't.


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

Now, can you please explain to me what the explicit connection is between the PC's happening to be at a particular location at 6 PM and those randomly generated monsters appearing at that particular location?

To me, it rather seems that there is no explicit connection. Any randomly generated encounter based on an arbitrary die roll result is going to be complete disconnected between whatever the party is doing and the resulting encounter.

So, if random encounters, which are at the heart of sandbox play are effectively, no different than an encounter resulting from a failed die roll by the players, what is the issue here?

 

[The Firebird]

Then I'm not sure why you'd object to a failed roll alerting her. She's involved.

I'm fine with a failed roll alerting her if her existence was decided prior to the roll. I'm not fine with the roll failing and the DM saying "hmm, it's a kitchen, I guess a cook is involved".

I mean, at the most basic, you have the different skills involved. Maybe the thief is excellent at climbing, but not as good at picking locks. Then there is the goal of breaking in to consider... someone mentioned it was to find a map (I don't recall if this was from the actual example or not)... where is the map? On the first floor or the second? Is this known or suspected in some way? And so on.

Is the estate in question actually defined enough that the GM knows where the map is? That would improve the scenario somewhat, from my perspective. But that kind of detailed mapping seems to require more prep than these games want.

Or is it just known vaguely, like "in the study on the second floor", with no other details known?