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

[TwoSix]

It's connected in the same way that I'm connected to grass because I ate a steak.

“And when we die, our bodies feed the grass. Thus we are all connected in the great circle of life.”

 

[TwoSix]

You may not pre-establish stuff, but I do and that stuff isn't going to be altered by a pick lock roll.

I mean, yea? If you want to pre-establish stuff, then fail forward techniques might be less useful because you have less freedom to make up new things.

That’s exactly why I don’t generally pre-establish stuff. Whatever you’re gaining from pre-establishing stuff doesn’t do anything for me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You know you've reached quality discussion when we are arguing about the location of the imaginary cook's quarters in the imaginary wizard's tower in relation to a possible Fail Forward example.

Fiction first right.

shrug

Folks complained, sometimes quite bitterly, about feeling "interrogated" before--yes, that word was actually used.

If someone wants to pick nits that hard about Fail Forward, well, I think they're being silly, but far be it for me to tell them what to spend their time on. I could comment on what I feel regarding the current round of doing so, but would it actually affect anything? Would it actually add to the conversation?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Why does this make a difference?

You keep on returning that in one case, the cook is just "created" but in the other case they aren't, but the reasons you give don't support the claim that the cook is "just created" in the fail forward scenario, but isn't if the GM is improvising the scene using a random encounter.

Except they don't exist in their set locations. Because the location is a random house the player was trying to rob. So everything is improvised. None of them exist anywhere.

it makes a difference because then it matters what approach the PCs take in the entry, the NPCs do exist in their set locations, the GM may have only rolled to determine what NPCs exist and where those locations are a literal 30 seconds ago when the players declared their intent to break into the random house but that still establishes those locations as set for the fiction by a separate process than the player's actions, the NPCs don't coincidentally exist in a troublesome location for the players based on if a player beefs their lockpicking roll, you cannot determine if the cook would've been in the kitchen before the lockpicking roll because they're not anywhere until the roll is made and a complication is needed.

 

[FrozenNorth]

First, I didn't say for sure that it was most, but I very strongly believe that it is. Second, 4e was not a traditional D&D game. Third, in the 5e amd 5.5e DMGs it's a small optional rule, not the default. Fourth, if you really think that fail forward is used by a majority of DMs, I've got some bridges to sell you. There's a reason why it's a tiny optional rule and not the default method.

Whether you like or not, 4e was as much a traditional D&D game as AD&D or BECMI. Fail-forward is not an optional rule in either DMGs I mentioned: it is DM advice.

As for the rest, you are just stating your previous unsupported point, only with more emphasis. It’s not particularly more convincing.

 

[FrozenNorth]

it makes a difference because then it matters what approach the PCs take in the entry, the NPCs do exist in their set locations, the GM may have only rolled to determine what NPCs exist and where those locations are a literal 30 seconds ago when the players declared their intent to break into the random house but that still establishes those locations as set for the fiction by a separate process than the player's actions, the NPCs don't coincidentally exist in a troublesome location for the players based on if a player beefs their lockpicking roll, you cannot determine if the cook would've been in the kitchen before the lockpicking roll because they're not anywhere until the roll is made and a complication is needed.

So the issue isn’t that the « cook appeared out of nothing » which as we’ve established occurs whether the GM uses fail forward or a random encounter.

The issue as you’ve identified is that if the PCs have approached breaking into the manor in a particular way « verifying the presence of inhabitants beforehand », that approach may be invalidated by if the result of a fail-forward check is to place the cook in the kitchen.

The first obvious response is that if the players did not approach breaking into the manner by verifying the location of the inhabitants beforehand, it is perfectly cromulent that the cook heard them from her cot next to the kitchen and came to investigate.

Second, if the players did for some reason verify the location of the inhabitants beforehand, the GM could simply use a different fail-forward consequence. Several have been proposed:

• Door is opened but lock pick breaks in the process;
• Alarm spell notifies the homeowner;
• Lock is opened but a couple of city guards arrive as part of their rounds.

 

[The Firebird]

Then what would you do if the player tried to do something you had not prepared for?

Improvise.

So what is your position? You just saying "that's not what I said" doesn't tell us what you are saying.

I've explained my position at length in earlier posts. Even when I I explicitly tell you I'm not sayng something, you continue to characterize my views as such. So I'm not interested in explaining them to you again. You can check my post history in this thread if you'd like.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whether it is like that or not in-play is not necessarily relevant. Someone, upthread, used a specific example from earlier (the "save a person at the top of the cliff") to examine different gradations of "gameplay" in a situation. I was simply providing additional descriptive examples, showing how this described by another user situation, of [you have an unknown time limit that could render all your efforts meaningless], would be quite liable to inducing a less-than-desirable experience for a goodly chunk of people, even those who might otherwise very much enjoy a sandbox-y game.


Roleplaying is one component of the experience, yes, I agree--but it is one component, not the ONLY component. That doesn't mean it's in any way lesser--indeed, I very much believe it shares first place, tied with the other primary component. That being, y'know, gameplay. It can, I agree, be fun to roleplay through a situation where you end up losing, and one reason to include the dice is to allow for degrees of success or failure over the course of a complicated process (like a "quest", understood in the "traditional GM" perspective, e.g. the party wants to find the cure for the king's infertility to claim the huge reward.)

But let us not pretend that the fact that the roleplay can be really good thus means it never ever feels pretty awful to fail on something in the game that you cared about a lot. Even for folks who have a negative attitude toward mechanics overall (something I find lamentably common on this board), loss will still sometimes genuinely sting--and if it was in a moment that really mattered to you, it'll sting all the more. Now imagine if you felt such a sting...not because you made any mistakes, nor because you failed to account for all of the information you could possibly know...but simply because dice decided you had already 100% guaranteed lost before you even started. I believe it was @clearstream who wanted to analyze this concept further to tease out possible nuance.

The very thing you frame as problematic here we would frame as a virtue.

As players we want an experience where all that is possible because it’s a better simulation of how things work in reality. The virtue is in the simulation. From a purely gamist perspective this definitely won’t make for a satisfying experience. But not all aspects of RPG play are about gamist concerns.

(As an aside, the dramatic aspects of narrativist play mesh really well with this particular gamist concern).

Sometimes we try our best and it’s just too late. Sometimes we try but slack off for a bit and then have to wonder whether our decision would have made a difference.

Oh and let’s preempt this - wanting simulation elements doesn’t mean one wants no gamist elements.

 

[AlViking]

Again, he literally said those sessions were frustrating, to the point they cheered when it was over. And I don't recall Lanefan answering me when I asked if they had enjoyed those sessions or not.

Victory is sweet, yes. Spending that much time on an epic battle, a dangerous (but maybe smallish) dungeon, or some other major undertaking, sure. Two and a half sessions, which Lanefan has said, IIRC, are in the 4-6 hour range each, or even longer, on what he also said was a "simple" puzzle, is not, to me, a sweet victory.

I just stated that I would not want the same kind of game as @Lanefan? That doesn't mean I will ever tell him, you, or anyone else that they're doing it wrong. It also doesn't mean that I would ever want every failure somehow turned into a success with a cost with a fail forward. Sometimes what I attempt fails and nothing happens. I wouldn't want that to go on for hours but if it works for someone else I'm not one to judge.

If you want to discuss what I actually said let me know.

 

[AlViking]

The cook would also be there whether or not you break in at all, let alone unsuccessfully.

I was not the one who came up with the scenario, the cook was cook was added because of a failure. If the lockpick attempt had worked correctly the room would have been empty.