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

[The Firebird]

It's like the example I came up with way upthread: the PCs are passing through a town, which you, as the GM, expect to be nothing more than a pit stop. Instead, one of the PCs decides to break into a house and rob it. You didn't prepare the house or its inhabitants ahead of time. What do you do? One person, I believe it was @The Firebird, indicated the house would simply remain an empty shell, rather than come up with inhabitants and their belongings on the fly in response to the player's actions.

I did not say this. I would not run it like this.

Like, we have people saying that they'd establish everything ahead of time--that's the "platonic ideal", at any rate--but not much about what happens if the player picks something unexpected, beyond, maybe, roll on a random table. Either these GMs believes themselves to be omniscient, or they have unimaginative, or at least highly predictable players, or they don't let the players make unapproved choices.

This is also not my position. The reason I adopted the "mean between two extremes" language was to reject this idea that I don't like improvisation, so I am disappointed that it is being characterized this way. (unless you mean someone else by 'people', but I was referred to specifically and I used the 'platonic ideal' language, so I see it as directed at me).

And yet you took "you couldn't tell they were making it up" to mean me saying that cheating is OK.

That is not what I said.

Maybe I wrote it badly. So here it is again: How would you know that the GM is using improv instead of having written everything down before?

You ask 'hey GM, did you improvise that or do you have notes for everything in advance?'

 

[AlViking]

And this is probably why you had to waste two and a half frustrating--your words--sessions trying to solve a children's riddle--instead of actually playing the game and doing things that were not frustrating.

My games don't look all that much like @Lanefan's but saying that they're playing wrong if it's their preferred style isn't great. Meanwhile I do want a game where I try things and they don't work even if it's momentarily frustrating. I want to earn my successes, victory is sweetest when you've known defeat.

 

[zakael19]

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.

Naw, I'm not offended (we're talking about TTRPGs on the internet and you're not telling me I suck at running the game I've been devoted to for years, unlike the stuff poor @pemerton has been getting) it just seemed to be getting a little absurd.

If anything, I'm exhausted...from dealing with the conservatism...of D&D fans...

wait a second

 

[FrogReaver]

The cook? Why is it a problem? Don't want to risk running into domestic staff? Don't break into houses! There's no quantum cook here, just a throw of dice deciding if you run into her.

In fail forward the dice aren’t deciding the cook is there. The dm is. All the dice decide is that some complication is occurring while the game state progresses.

It’s becoming a big pet peeve of mine to not be precise on that point, especially when we are contrasting with techniques where the dice do actually determine whether the cook is there.

 

[zakael19]

That doesn't make any sense. If you succeeded in your roll, there shouldn't be any complication attached to it. Success with a complication would be if you failed, or maybe if you failed by a very narrow margin.

I agree, assuming we're talking about a binary d20 sort of game. I don't think "partial success" or "success with complications" or whatever you want to call it works well there. If you want to do "fail forward" in a system like that you just do a good job establishing the stakes up front for a roll, and only call for rolls when there's stakes.

Errant is the D20 system Im aware of that bakes this in the best. It has FITD style explicit fictional position/effect discussions, a Difficulty Value calculation routine for the Guide that basically lets you openly and cleanly adjudicate "you just do it" tasks, and insists upon Stakes being known prior to a test.

 

[Maxperson]

The number on the die is there specifically to inform the narrative result, isn't it?

Yeah, another hideous mechanic that needs to die in a very hot fire and for the same reason: fail = fail.

I dislike it for weapons, but I'm curious how you feel about damage(take half) on a miss(successful save vs. your spell)? I think the majority of damage dealing spells are effectively damage on a miss.

 

[The Firebird]

I want to go deeper than that. Why does it matter to you whether they existed beforehand? What are you gaining if that's the case as opposed to it not being the case?

Here, meaningful decision making. If they exist beforehand than a different decision can bypass an obstacle. If they only exist after the roll, then my choices weren't so important -- the roll was.

 

[TwoSix]

I dislike it for weapons, but I'm curious how you feel about damage(take half) on a miss(successful save vs. your spell)? I think the majority of damage dealing spells are effectively damage on a miss.

Well, it’s from 1e, so it’s probably fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The thief was trying to sneak into the room and succeeded on their Stealth check. Shouldn't that mean that an ordinary cook not hear or see them enter?

It was a lockpicking check, not a stealth check.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, it’s from 1e, so it’s probably fine.

I suspect that's why I'm okay with it for spells and not weapons. Or it might be, because magic. Either way I recognize the inconsistency there on my part.