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

[Faolyn]

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.

No. The scenario was, the cook screamed because they noticed the PC breaking in due to their clumsy attempts at lockpicking. If the attempt had worked correctly, the cook wouldn't have noticed them enter it and wouldn't have screamed.

 

[Faolyn]

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".

Yes? Just like a roll of under the DC in a D&D game will always be a failure.

At least a 7-9 is a yes, but response, not a no, just no response.

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.

In the PbtA games that I have read, preparation and often equipment as well give bonuses to the roll. The player may have a playbook-specific move that gives them extra bonuses or helps them mitigate consequences as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. The scenario was, the cook screamed because they noticed the PC breaking in due to their clumsy attempts at lockpicking. If the attempt had worked correctly, the cook wouldn't have noticed them enter it and wouldn't have screamed.

Let’s expand on that. Could the players have done anything to validate that the house had no one awake in it before?

What would be the risks for them involved in doing so?

 

[Campbell]

What I personally find frustrating is that many people approach from the perspective of there being this like platonic form of roleplaying, a golden structure of play, even if just a golden structure for them. And they basically have no respect for play that does not meet their standard or really any concern for accuracy when discussing other methods of play. The only concern seems to be is this for me and/or does this conform to my golden standard.

Like how narrative game has come to mean anything besides play is not structured fundamentally like AD&D. Games have basically nothing in common except not being structured according to the golden standard get treated like they are fundamentally the same thing. Crucial details about how they work, how they are structured, what their mechanics do get confused and attempts to clarify get met with I still don't like that as if whether you like or not is the only thing that matters. Not the actual details of how stuff works or the communication costs that combining these very distinct things together as one have on people who play these games.

Treating fundamental differences between games like Hillfolk, Chronicles of Darkness and Apocalypse World as essentially rounding errors is deeply frustrating because they play nothing like one another and have GM roles as distinctive from one another as they are from AD&D. This is especially frustrating for me when it comes to stuff like Vampire - The Requiem which at core is pretty damn simulation-oriented but gets cast as Narrative because the things it simulates are as psychological as physical.

 

[Pedantic]

I mean, if I've been reading your posts correctly (and I've been trying!), your core position is to minimize player-DM negotiation over narrative context and positioning to as close to zero as possible, and have every fictional position presented by the DM having obvious mechanical linkages to player-side invokable mechanics. With the goal of every presented fictional position being inherently "solvable" or at least optimizable by some combination of player invokable mechanics (although the players may not have all the tools required because of choices made during earlier fictional positions.)

I'm sure I'm not stating all the nuances clearly, but am I at least in the right vicinity?

Yeah, that's pretty good. The point about solvability/optimization is too small, but it's a start. It's certainly better than this:

I tend to view "gamist" and "simulationist" as the same thing.

I am assuming by the distinction, gamist specifically means formulating "mechanics" in a way that is either "win" or "lose", and emphasizing challenge and competition?

Competition is a tool, not the point, challenge is necessary to reach the appropriate state, but not a metric that can be maximized for greater success. The point is to present the player with interesting decisions and allow those decisions to be evaluated. To be interesting, the decision must not be obvious or arbitrary; simple optimization cases are generally obvious, and really only shine as displays of skill over extended time as fatigue sets in. If the decisions is as well made by flipping a coin or tossing a die as by a player picking something, it also has no value.

The bit that keeps getting cast as "winning" is evaluation: what was the quality of the player's decisions? Did they achieve the desired outcome? The bit that's important here is not actually whether the player "won," it's whether the player can see the impact their decisions had and can reason through a counterfactual. What's important is that decision be made in service of some goal, and the analysis of that goal lives outside the player themselves. The player should be able to learn from the experience; what could they have done differently, and how can they change their play to do better in future? Then you just sort of do that forever; get in a novel situation, make choices, learn about the impact of those choices.

I sort of understand why that looks so compatible with narrativism at a glance, but you need evaluation and direction to be playing a game in a way that I think is somewhat in conflict with the "playing to find out" question. We're both there to see what the board looks like, but we're employing opposing processes to get there, and leaving with different information.

Yeah. I just feel like there's this immense kind of mental gymnastics that goes on around "this stuff is ultimately just made up by the GM." Now, there can be a legitimate reason to favor stuff being made up far in advance and then stuck to assiduously. But that argument is a gamist one, to make the challenges 'fair contests' of player skill. I see no sign @Maxperson advocates for that. If it's the actual reason, he can win me over instantly by saying so. There's other posters whom I think might be more in that camp though, like @Pedantic

So, the thing is, I actually think I'm just being more judicious about trying to fulfill the same goal as other proponents (or perhaps opponents, if we're primarily united by objecting to fail forward mechanics) here. Fundamentally, I think our primary difference is in how much stock we put in GMs as designers. I think they're pretty bad and hoard player agency much tighter and thus have much stricter system side demands; if you're using a much less calibrated scale for measuring player impact, then it just doesn't matter.

@Enrahim brought up Fluxx earlier, a game I will happily never play again, but many people do. It's mostly random, has really limited impact per decision, and despite presenting as a wildly changing game that never plays the same way twice, breaks down into pretty clearly repeated play patterns that provide a pretty similar experience game to game. I would legitimately choose not to play a game over playing a game of Fluxx, but it's sold quite broadly and is a commercial success, and many people enjoy it. Presumably they're significantly less homed in on my concerns, and even to the degree they care about gameplay, probably care a lot less than I do.

That's fundamentally what I think is going on here. You're getting what I suppose we could call a "gamist" criticism, coming from a perspective that's concerned their decisions are being rendered arbitrary. I'm just going a step further and pointing out yet more ways that can occur and proposing solutions there, because I am bought in a layer deeper. I don't think we actually need criticism to be complete and pure to be valid. Surely someone can have a little concern that the gameplay doesn't look good, in much the same way I'm not completely willing to compromise what a given mechanic is modeling?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

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

I feel like these two sentences conflict to some extent. In the situation as described, the cook would be something in my mind as a possible complication or encounter. I wouldn't have odds like you describe because I would rely on a different method to determine when and how she shows up.

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.

Well, we don't know if the watchmen will become involved or not when the situation begins. There's a possibility, sure.

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

This very much depends on the game in question. I would approach it very differently depending on the game.

Assuming 5e or a similar set up, the main thing to know is what interest the players have here. If the goal is to steal a map, then that's the most important thing for me. Then I go with what makes sense based on what's been established already in the game. If we know the owner of the manor, and if his importance or status in society has been established and so on. Obviously, we know he's affluent... but are we talking like a minor noble, or an uber-rich noble? Those things may matter. Also, what family connections have been established? Is he married? Do they have children? Does he have household members who are not blood relations?

These things may help determine who is within. If they've not been established, then I'll consider them as things progress, and decide as needed. If these kinds of things haven't been established already, then I'd make a decision. For instance, given the importance of marriage and heirs in medievalish cultures, I'd assume a spouse and some children. Would there also be someone potentially dangerous? A personal guard or right-hand man type? That seems to make sense, and would create for a possible danger to the PCs. I'm also picturing a pair of hounds that serve as a form of security. One sleeps at the foot of the stairs leading up to the family's quarters, and the other sleeps in the nursery with the children.

That's about as detailed as I'd need to be to get started.

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.

I think there have been plenty examples of both in this thread. And just to point out, Fail Forward may be part of some specific games, but it can also be used in trad games.

I think that, for me, where the exhausting bit comes from is that just the very idea of Fail Forward being used in a game like D&D. I think it's perfectly fine to not like Narrativist games... but when we talk about a method available to GMs to use, even in trad play, the resistance to it is kind of bonkers. The twisting that happens to render examples non-sensical is remarkable.

Like, the example of the cook and the kitchen... if the cook being introduced as a complication on a failed roll doesn't work for you, then you just don't do that. You can instead have any number of other things happen... whatever you think makes sense for the situation. If your prep indicated a hound in the house like I mentioned above, perhaps the thief hears a low growl on the other side of the door. Perhaps a neighbor notices the thief at the door and calls out. Perhaps the town guard happens to wander by.

The idea is just to not have "nothing happen". That's all. Is that really a bad idea? And, let's say that you decide that the best thing that could happen in the case of the thief at the door is that the door remains locked and he has to figure something else out? Okay, fine... go ahead and do that! That just means that you didn't use Fail Forward in this instance. It doesn't mean you never could or should.

The outright rejection of the idea is the exhausting bit. Unless everyone here truly believes that the only thing that should ever happen on a failed roll is "nothing happens"... which I highly doubt.

 

[TwoSix]

@Enrahim brought up Fluxx earlier, a game I will happily never play again, but many people do. It's mostly random, has really limited impact per decision, and despite presenting as a wildly changing game that never plays the same way twice, breaks down into pretty clearly repeated play patterns that provide a pretty similar experience game to game. I would legitimately choose not to play a game over playing a game of Fluxx, but it's sold quite broadly and is a commercial success, and many people enjoy it. Presumably they're significantly less homed in on my concerns, and even to the degree they care about gameplay, probably care a lot less than I do.

I play Fluxx with my younger kids. It's a terrible game but a fun activity. A lot of things that fall into the bucket of "games" are really just activities, to my perspective.

 

[AlViking]

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.

There's also a big difference to me between "You succeed no matter what you roll..." and "If you get really close to success...".

 

[AnotherGuy]

Maybe. I think they may view you as having just pushed the actual problem off to the cat instead of the person coming to the door. Unless the cat wasn’t just made up at that moment as a posthoc justification.

Seriously?! You have an issue with a made up cat?
So you don't make things up on the spot? You don't borrow cool ideas from the players at the table?
Is this a genuine gripe? You ONLY roleplay in worlds where all pets are named?

I also think it may fail the plausibility test for a more traditional oriented player. The cat knocking something over and someone hearing that and coming to investigate is a string of coincidences that aren’t all that likely to actually occur, especially at the very moment you are trying to break in.

This is another get lost in the weeds debate.
I'm not announcing probabilities I'm looking to see if more plausible fiction can lead to additional generated comment for a Fail Forward in a Trad game.
By all means provide a more plausible example in your mind.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, that seems ok to me.

I guess if the table doesn't reasonably reflect the game state. E.g., a villain who is on continent A appears on the list with the same probability as one on continent B.

Great! So with all these things in mind over our last few posts let’s see if we can make something similar to fail forward that works for you?

Suppose we change fail forward into a 2 part process. 1) a roll is made to determine if there is a consequence (for now let’s say it’s the lock picking roll) and 2) a separate roll is made to determine what the consequence is.

The table we roll on for 2) is not static though, because the particulars of the situation change what can occur and the probabilities it can occur. So we generate the table as early as we can, but that’s not very early given the constraints of needing scenario specifics to populate and weight it appropriately.

Would this be an acceptable implementation of fail forward for you?