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

[TwoSix]

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.

I mean, we've established that you really shouldn't use a lot of fail-forward if your focus of play is on navigating pre-established obstacles. This isn't new.

To me, it just sounds you like prefer trad-style games that are focused on solving the module. If that's your focus, of course you don't like fail-forward.

 

[TwoSix]

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

I understand your point, but I think your particular desire for gamist strategic structures is probably out of the scope of even this broad, unwieldy thread.

 

[The Firebird]

Decided in what way? Written down in some way? Included in some boxed text? Statted out as full fledged NPC?

At a minimum, in the GMs mind or notes. Just odds of existence are enough; "2-in-6, cook" for example.

Is it not enough to simply imagine that a manor house or castle or similar dwelling would have servants, and that one of the most common types of servants would be a cook?

No. Something like "in each room, roll 2-in-6 for servants; if servants, roll 2d10" would be better, imo.

Do we also need to have the night watchmen similarly decided ahead of time? The innkeeper? Every single NPC that might exist in the town?

Yes for the watchman because they play a significant role in the break in. No for every single NPC. If the existence of NPC is at a prime adventure site, better to have more detail (again, a table or odds is enough). If the players decide to break in to a location that had not been fleshed out, make some quick decisions before the break in.

In the example as presented, we have no idea. That’s why its usefulness as an example has been challenged. I mean… I think it’s enough to get the idea across to those unfamiliar with it (or, I would have thought that, prior to this thread), but it’s nota very solid example at all.

I'm asking what you think is sufficient to run your game. How much detai about the estate do you need?

If I did decide that fail forward was the best way to handle this, then I wouldn’t have the cook scream already. I’d have the thief open the door, see the cook, whose eyes would go wide… clearly she’s about to scream. Then I’d ask the players what they’d do.

Yes, I agree. I think we established this in the discussion on Harper's blog post.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

You can still do prep (Guidance, Potion, Rage) and still miss on an attack.
The 7-9 in that game reflects a consequence must arise.
Your prep may eliminate some Fail Forward scenarios but you don't get to win the game.

It is just a different type of Failure to what generally arises in most D&D games.
Not liking it is fine, but I think the other side that uses it doesn't want it misrepresented. i.e. any prep you do does not have an affect.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Right, and that works both ways. That's probably why the two sides of this discussion have the preferences that we do.

 

[The Firebird]

I mean, we've established that you really shouldn't use a lot of fail-forward if your focus of play is on navigating pre-established obstacles. This isn't new.

To me, it just sounds you like prefer trad-style games that are focused on solving the module. If that's your focus, of course you don't like fail-forward.

I think if the conclusion here is "people dislike narrative games for well founded reasons about what they get out of play" rather than "D&D gamers are reflexively conservative in the mechanics they use and that is exhausting", I'd be satisfied.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Right, and that works both ways. That's probably why the two sides of this discussion have the preferences that we do.

I think there is room for appreciation of both sides, especially if you're running prepped and non-prepped scenarios alike in a huge sandbox.
The prepped ones are maps and combat grids and beating the module while the non-prepped ones are seat of your pants free-flow Narrative, Fail Forward techniques and theatre-of-mind style.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes it is optional. In both 5e and 5.5e. The default is not to run skill checks that way. The RULE is in the PHB and it says nothing about fail forward or success with a cost. The DMG option says...

"As a DM, you have a variety of flourishes and approaches you can take when adjudicating success and failure to make things a little less black-and-white"

And...

"When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance."

Can = optional. The rule doesn't have that as part of it. The rule is not if you fail by 1 or 2 there is a success, but also a cost.

Had it used the word "should", it would be advice. "...and approaches you should take when adjudicating..." and "...fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you should allow..." That's advice.

The 5.5e wording is the same. "Can" instead of "should." It remains optional.

 

[TwoSix]

Right, and that works both ways. That's probably why the two sides of this discussion have the preferences that we do.

For sure. And since I play with a pretty broad group of people across multiple tables and systems, understanding those different preferences and finding ways to synthesize approaches that can kind of satisfy most people is what I'm interested in.

Like @The Firebird said yesterday, he doesn't like DMs that don't do any prep work and just make stuff up. That's the bulk of my DMing! (Although I occasionally experiment with more OSR-type approaches.) So I'm curious how I would bridge that divide if I had players that had similar preferences.

 

[TwoSix]

I think if the conclusion here is "people dislike narrative games for well founded reasons about what they get out of play" rather than "D&D gamers are reflexively conservative in the mechanics they use and that is exhausting", I'd be satisfied.