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

[AlViking]

But, if the party was a couple of miles east, then they would still be in the forest but not at that location. So, still quantum. Note, you admit it yourself - AREA. The encounter occurs because of a completely arbitrary roll on a completely arbitrary table and occurs at whatever location the PC's happen to be in, regardless of their actual location. So long as they are somewhere in that forest, they will have that encounter.

So. Quantum. Unless your encounter can only happen in a specific location, then it has to be quantum. There's no way for it not to be. A few hundred yards in any direction and that encounter never happens unless our random encounter somehow, through some unspecified manner, always appears exactly where the PCs are. I wonder what that unspecified manner could possibly be.

If you're in the woods and encounter a bear does it matter if it's not the same bear you would have encountered a couple miles east? Does it matter that if it's a predator that they often travel dozens of miles in a day looking for prey? No one is saying you run into a specific troll named Chaz, you run into a troll because there are lots of trolls in that forest. On the other hand if you do happen to run into Chaz, let him know he still owes Grognar 50 GP and he should just be lucky I'm not adding on compounding interest.

 

[AlViking]

The problem that I, personally, have with this (and which is only a problem because of the style of play I'm generally looking for, and not because it's wrong in any kind of objective sense), is because I feel that it presumes that it is up to the GM to ensure the players have a way to continue pursuing/tracking/engaging with the assassin (or the assassin's employers), no matter what the outcome of the roll is.

I generally prefer games where the assassin might get away clean, depending on relative skill, luck and the context of the moment within the gameworld, without too much thought about what would allow the current storyline to move forward. At this point, the players might come up with a new line of enquiry that allows them to continue their original investigation, or it might be time to write this off as a loss. You win some, you lose some.

This doesn't make fail forward wrong. It doesn't make anyone wrong for wanting fail forward in their games. It does make it unsuitable for the games I typically run. Not because I don't understand it, but because its use is designed to support a different (but equally valid) set of expectations and assumptions about how a game should play out.

Note: I'm not interested in defending my preferences to someone who thinks I have to prove that some other decision I might make in a different circumstance will involve weighing all relevant factors in exactly the same ratios of importance. Sometimes, something being interesting does, in fact matter to me; that doesn't change anything I've said above. I'm also not going to respond if someone tries to claim I'm throwing around objective claims or that I should focus more on my own feelings instead of absolutes. If that's really what someone takes from what I've just said, no meaningful dialogue is possible. I have worded everything I've said as careful as I can to avoid such accusations; if it's still not enough, I give up.

I'm right there with you on the giving up part. I've finally realized how divergent the definitions of fail forward are ... and as far as I can tell people still refuse to accept that their definition of fail forward is not the only one. Even though the "let a failure succeed and add something to the fiction that wouldn't have be there on a successful check" is by far the most typical example I find when I look outside of this thread. Along with endless "But why couldn't you?" Why is "Because I don't want to" never good enough?

I get that narrative games have different beats, different goals, different approach. I don't happen to like what they do, I prefer a more simulationist approach where the players drive the game forward and the GM just makes sure there's interesting stuff to interact with. No, I will never make a perfect living world, no I will never be 100% objective, yes on rare occasions I will add to the fiction on the fly (just not as complication to a failed roll that is unrelated to the action taken).

 

[The Firebird]

It turns out that there are a lot of different types of “quantum” at play in RPGs. I think it might be good for conversation to have a taxonomy of them. So here goes.

Our situation is that last session it became clear that in the next session the group is planning to move through a forest using one of the two well known paths (A and B), but they have not yet decided which. This forest is known for having a particularly ferocious Ogre roaming it. What are possible approaches to decide if the group encounters it as they move through the forest?

1: The classic locally deterministic quantum: Once the players commit to a path, the Ogre appears on that path.
2: The local evenly random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM flip a coin to see if the Ogre is on that path.
3: The global evenly random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM flip a coin to see which path the Ogre is currently guarding.
4: The local uneven random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM rolls D20. If the players chose path A the Ogre is there on a 5 or lower, if they chose path B the ogre is there on a 15 or lower.
5: The global uneven random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM rolls D20. If the result is 5 or lower, the ogre is on path A, otherwise it is on path B.
6: The oversaturated local random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM rolls D20. If they chose path A the Ogre is on the path on a 15 or lower. If they chose path B the ogre is on the path on a 10 or lower.
7: The weirdly entangled local quantum: If a character is declared to “be alert” while moving through the forest, the player rolls a D20. On a 6 or higher the Ogre is on the path. If no one makes such a declaration it is not on the path.
8: The ultra local random quantum: While the party is traveling through the forest, roll D6 every hour. On a 1 they encounter the ogre.
9: The even random stocking: Before the session the GM flip a coin to determine which path the Ogre is on.
10: The uneven random stocking: Before the session the GM roll D20. On a 5 or less the Ogre is on path A, otherwise it is on path B.
11: The deterministic stocking: Before the session the GM decides where the ogre is.
and as a bonus
12: The anticlimax: There is no Ogre to encounter, as the last party passing through already has slain it, and its remains have been consumed by forest beings.

Which of these do you find acceptable? Which are unacceptable? Why?
I have quite a few thoughts about this myself, but I guess this post is long enough as is.

Really nice list. For me all of these except (1) and (6), and (7) are ok. (1) Is bad for obvious reasons; (6) has too high probability, and (7) is weirdly dependent on player action.

I'll add

13: Fail forward quantum: if the players gather herbs and get a result of 7-9, they encounter an ogre. Otherwise no encounter.

I also dislike (13) for reasons I've described.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

But in the fiction, the cook was always there. The lockpick failure was just the reason the cook was encountered at that particular time.

Improving a NPC or encounter doesn't make the encounter quantum; once introduced, it was always a part of the history of the setting.

 

[Enrahim]

13: Fail forward quantum: if the players gather herbs and get a result of 7-9, they encounter an ogre. Otherwise no encounter.

I also dislike (13) for reasons I've described.

This example I thought would fit into category 7?

Edit: ok, maybe we need the category "weirdly entangled ultra local quantum" to properly account for this.

 

[TwoSix]

I get that narrative games have different beats, different goals, different approach. I don't happen to like what they do, I prefer a more simulationist approach where the players drive the game forward and the GM just makes sure there's interesting stuff to interact with. No, I will never make a perfect living world, no I will never be 100% objective, yes on rare occasions I will add to the fiction on the fly (just not as complication to a failed roll that is unrelated to the action taken).

I don't have a problem with what you do. Totally fine.

But "where the players drive the game forward and the GM just makes sure there's interesting stuff to interact with" is exactly what I do without any sort of simulationism or prep, so it's kinda a crap description of what you're doing differently than me. I'm mostly just against descriptions that aren't useful.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

I want to emphasize and pull out this point because it demonstrates exactly my problem with these systems. Here, the players took some actions to prepare and avoid issues, and the response is... Just pick a different consequence. To me, this reads as saying "no matter how effectively the PCs scope the place out and try to avoid potential issues, a roll of 7-9 will always give them a consequence".

Hence, it seems to me the preparation doesn't really matter, only the rolls. I may be able to change the specific type of consequence, but there is no shortage of options for those and I'm not improving my odds of success in any way.

 

[The Firebird]

This example I thought would fit into category 7?

Yeah it is pretty similar. Hmm. I guess I wanted to make the actions being distinct more clear?

FWIW I've seen that example play out. Usually the DM is at a loss for what to do, the players say "I'll be alert for enemies", and the DM will think "oh yeah, they can ambushed, I'll create some enemies".

Usually from inexperienced DMs.

 

[Maxperson]

So, if the PC's didn't go to that exact location, that random encounter would not happen?

Random encounters happen when PCs are at a location. I roll them in advance to give me time, but they are already at that location. If they surprise me and leave the area to the point where a random encounter should not have been rolled, they will not have that encounter.

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that if Schrodinger(the DM) opened his box(rolled the encounter) and the cat(encounter) was fixed as dead(it's trolls) when he saw it, then you walked in(PCs are at wandering monster time) and saw a dead cat(attacked by trolls) in the box, it would be quantum for you. It wouldn't. Once I fix the encounter, it can't be quantum for the PCs.

 

[Pedantic]

I don't have a problem with what you do. Totally fine.

But "where the players drive the game forward and the GM just makes sure there's interesting stuff to interact with" is exactly what I do without any sort of simulationism or prep, so it's kinda a crap description of what you're doing differently than me. I'm mostly just against descriptions that aren't useful.

I'd argue the issue lies in the mechanisms of interaction, but that leads us quickly out of short summation territory.