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

[FrogReaver]

Going back to OD&D or Basic, a lot of dungeon play is oriented around minimizing time spent in the dungeon, such that wandering encounter checks are minimized (which I would characterize as "avoiding" or "negating".)

I don't disagree here but I think it's an important distinction whether we are talking about keeping the check from occuring vs doing something to prevent the encounter after the check occurs. I was clearly talking about the later.

For more trad/sim play, I feel like a lot of Random Encounters are there to promote the "living world" feel. There are definitely aspects of "consequence" depending on player actions, but my gut feeling is the major point is to provide setting texture.

I agree here as well. Random encounters in sim play are less about consequence and more about having the world feel real.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem is that "solely" is doing some heavy lifting there. I know people who play 5e and PF2e regularly who wouldn't find an encounter triggered by a lockpicking failure at all an issue if it was framed properly. That's a place where this sometimes bogs down; it takes a particularly strong simulation focus to have these things operate completely independently; otherwise the easy thing is just go "Okay, we've already decided that this lockpicking attempt is going to matter in some way; the question is, why does the failure matter?" If the answer is "because it wastes time", why does the time expenditure matter? In what way is it a negative outcome? Traditionally one of the things that would have made such things relevant was triggering random encounter rolls.

I'd suggest that's a sufficient buffer between the check and the ultimate outcome to avoid the complaint.

I don't think cutting out the middle-man and just having the failure serve as the check for that too would automatically bother everyone who primarily plays D&D either. It might bother them if that always happened, but then, it doesn't need to; sometimes maybe the guard shows up, sometimes the ritual you wanted to stop gets farther along, sometimes you partially jam the lock and now its harder to do it at all.

Are we really going to do this 'All->Many->Some Dance'? I don't care one bit if it's all or some non-trivial portion. It's a common complaint is the point. Now I am a bit curious if it doesn't bother them in D&D play simply because they haven't really sit down and thought it through like they would when confronted with a discussion about another mode of play, but I don't think that's an easy thing to determine.

Its an issue of making sure that the failure consequence fits the situation rather than just doing whatever's easy.

The Screaming Chef fit the situation. It wasn't accepted, and I'd bet that by and large it wouldn't be accepted by D&D players in analyzing their play. There's a big difference in play analysis and accepting something in the moment of play. I think many more would go with it in the moment and not even think about it, but that doesn't really tell the full story.

(Note, this does not counter my observation about people disliking there being an automatic consequence at all, but those people wouldn't like the old checking-for-random-encounters because of taking the time either).

Sure, that would be true of such a person, but I think for most of us it's alot more nuanced than that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd suggest that's a sufficient buffer between the check and the ultimate outcome to avoid the complaint.


Are we really going to do this 'All->Many->Some Dance'? I don't care one bit if it's all or some non-trivial portion. It's a common complaint is the point. Now I am a bit curious if it doesn't bother them in D&D play simply because they haven't really sit down and thought it through like they would when confronted with a discussion about another mode of play, but I don't think that's an easy thing to determine.

I'd say it doesn't bother them because its an additional problem connected to the failure, and frankly, they care more about the failure and the problem than they do about exactly how they were mechanically connected.

Sure, that would be true of such a person, but I think for most of us it's alot more nuanced than that.

But is "most of us" got anything to do with the majority of D&D players? Like with anything else in gaming, I'd bet not; it assumes most people playing think through the exact issues of cause and effect more than I have any reason to think they do. Its like the issue of "does the GM make it up in advance or do it on the fly"; for most players, they probably don't know or care. They care about how hard or interesting the result is, not where it came from.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I disagree. If the lockpick check had succeeded the cook was not there. But the example is just emblematic of my real issue, if every single time I fail any check things go to heck in a handbasket it would be a style of play I would not enjoy. Connect the failure directly to the declared action? Cool. Random-ass crap like this? Nah.

It doesn’t have to happen every time if you don’t want. Some games make Fail Forward an explicit part of the procedures. For other games, like D&D, it’s just there as an option.

Also, for @Micah Sweet and @Maxperson and anyone else who thinks that people are just expressing their preferences, I would point to the continued and willful ignorance that the cook can in fact easily be connected to the roll, and the descriptor of “random-ass crap” to be pretty obviously negative.

I'm also struggling a lot with the idea that finding someone in the house you're breaking into is "random-ass crap". That doesn't seem random at all! It seems pretty darn connected to what's going on in the fiction.

Yes… PCs running into a cook in a 12’ by 20’ kitchen? Quantum nonsense!! PCs running into trolls no matter where they goin a 6-square mile forest? Perfectly fine!!!

For more trad/sim play, I feel like a lot of Random Encounters are there to promote the "living world" feel. There are definitely aspects of "consequence" depending on player actions, but my gut feeling is the major point is to provide setting texture.

Yeah, it’s to make the location dynamic rather than static. And, ironically, to keep things moving so that what’s happening is not “nothing”. It’s also to make sure that when the PCs take any kind of action that could take some time… like searching a room or picking a lock… there’s a potential risk at play that they need to consider.

 

[The Firebird]

I'm fine with that being a requirement, but I'll note that it usually isn't a requirement for random encounter tables used traditionally. I had assumed you were fine with traditional random encounter tables, but maybe you don't like them unless they function this way as well?

Hmm. I think it is a requirement traditionally. Checks are called for in certain circumstances -- you enter a new hex, you spend some amount of time -- that the players have control over.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd say it doesn't bother them because its an additional problem connected to the failure, and frankly, they care more about the failure and the problem than they do about exactly how they were mechanically connected.



But is "most of us" got anything to do with the majority of D&D players? Like with anything else in gaming, I'd bet not; it assumes most people playing think through the exact issues of cause and effect more than I have any reason to think they do. Its like the issue of "does the GM make it up in advance or do it on the fly"; for most players, they probably don't know or care. They care about how hard or interesting the result is, not where it came from.

Okay. My stance is that if they did think about those things they would share similar opinions.

I'm really not sure how it makes sense to claim that someone that doesn't think about these things implicitly means they are okay with them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay. My stance is that if they did think about those things they would share similar opinions.

I'm really not sure how it makes sense to claim that someone that doesn't think about these things implicitly means they are okay with them.

Where did I say they were? I just said its a big jump to assume they wouldn't be, and part of that is that I think the majority care one way or the other because it doesn't impact play in a way that matters to them one way or another.

Most people don't care about things they don't notice or don't think about. I don't think that should be controversial.

 

[FrogReaver]

Where did I say they were? I just said its a big jump to assume they wouldn't be, and part of that is that I think the majority care one way or the other because it doesn't impact play in a way that matters to them one way or another.

You said
‘I'd say it doesn't bother them because its an additional problem connected to the failure, and frankly, they care more about the failure and the problem than they do about exactly how they were mechanically connected’

Not bothered still means okay with where I come from.

 

[AlViking]

It doesn’t have to happen every time if you don’t want. Some games make Fail Forward an explicit part of the procedures. For other games, like D&D, it’s just there as an option.

I do sometimes use the "close but no cigar" rule for checks. With lockpicking for example if you miss you may still be able to open the lock but it's going to take anywhere from a couple of minutes up to twenty minutes to open the lock. During the extra time it takes, someone could easily stumble across you but that would be a direct result of your character sitting there picking the lock. Another example would be if you fail an athletics check for a jump longer than standard and don't hit the target. If it's close you are on the edge of the other side but hanging on to the edge.

But those are things that are directly tied to the action, not something that has nothing to do with what was attempted. Which goes back to my not wanting to be a storyteller when I run a game.

Also, for @Micah Sweet and @Maxperson and anyone else who thinks that people are just expressing their preferences, I would point to the continued and willful ignorance that the cook can in fact easily be connected to the roll, and the descriptor of “random-ass crap” to be pretty obviously negative.

The cook could be there. But it was clear from the example that the sole reason she was there was because of a failed lockpicking attempt. That may not matter to you, it matters to me. It would matter if this kind of thing happened on a regular basis.

What can I say, the GM adding in a complication completely unrelated to the action attempted isn't something I want. I should have probably said "random-ass-stuff" but there have been so many veiled and not-so-veiled negative comments about people who don't use fail forward that it gets a tad annoying after a while.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You said
‘I'd say it doesn't bother them because its an additional problem connected to the failure, and frankly, they care more about the failure and the problem than they do about exactly how they were mechanically connected’

Not bothered still means okay with where I come from.

Then we use the term differently. "Okay" involves a less neutral reaction to me. You can't really be okay with something you aren't really paying attention to or thinking about; you just aren't bothered by it, but those aren't the same thing. There are all kinds of things I'm not bothered about which I might be if I paid them any mind or thought about them.