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

[Lanefan]

Right… again, the example as presented was not great. It’s really incomplete and was only meant to give a basic idea of the fail forward method. It was woefully incomplete.

As I said above to @The Firebird , I’d have telegraphed the presence of the cook. Probably the light of a cookfire and maybe some faint chopping noise. Something that establishes the risk of picking the lock. This way, when things go bad… what happens isn’t perceived as being totally unconnected.

If what happens as the result of a failed roll is actually unconnected to the situation and what’s being attempted, I think the GM has messed up in some way.

I think we're in broad agreement here, though the devil is in the details.

Sure, this is a way it could be handled. For me, I find all that too granular… I’d like to resolve it in fewer rolls.

Where I prefer the granular approach, within reason, as it helps keep things that should be unrelated (e.g. the pick-locks attempt vs whether the cook is awake or asleep) separate.

Also, it very much depends on the game. In some games, for example, the GM doesn’t roll dice for NPCs. Players roll for their PCs.

If the GM doesn't roll for the NPCs then who does? Not everything an NPC does is going to be known to a PC or even relatable - and here the cook is a fine example: if the thief never gets into the kitchen then he has no way of knowing whether the cook was awake or asleep; relevant in that if she was awake and heard someone trying to break in she might report this to someone in the morning, where if she slept through it then everyone's none the wiser.

 

[Faolyn]

I disagree. If the lockpick check had succeeded the cook was not there.

Maybe not in that particular example.

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.

You're still missing the point. It's not necessarily, or always, "heck in a handbasket." It's something that lets the story continue rather than just saying "it doesn't work."

 

[AlViking]

Maybe not in that particular example.


You're still missing the point. It's not necessarily, or always, "heck in a handbasket." It's something that lets the story continue rather than just saying "it doesn't work."

Whereas I'm completely okay with "it doesn't work" because as GM I'm not responsible for pushing the narrative forward.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Of those, I'm always fine with 11. 12 can be cool too: they expect an Ogre but only find its looted corpse, clearly slain by swords - instant adventure hook if you want it to be. The rest of those aren't really how I roll; though if I was using any of them there'd be an option in each case where the Ogre happens to be on neither path - it's a big forest, after all, and they might have to go searching for him.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

First, the cook isn't rolled on a wandering monster table, it's appearing in response to a completely unconnected pick lock roll.

So, basically only one very specific game mechanics is acceptable and all other variations are simply wrong because they're different. As I say, conservatism is frustrating, lol

Second, it's the middle of the night when the cook would be in a deep sleep, yet the roll teleports the cook to the kitchen awake and ready to spot the party, because pick lock fail. It's not as if being in the kitchen during sleep hours is some routine thing for the cook. There's almost no chance of the cook being there.

How do you know the detailed nighttime behaviors of random cooks? This is a detail you invented.

The cook is both asleep upstairs and in the kitchen simultaneously and her location won't be fixed until someone tries to pick the lock and we see the roll.

Edit: You also seem to be conflating illusionism with quantum. While the ogre is quantum like the cook, it's also being used for illusionism which is why you see a difference.

Well, yes, the quantum ogre is an illusionist tool, and the cook is not. So what? I don't label the cook either quantum nor illusionist. You guys invented this issue, not me. I've stated my position.

 

[The Firebird]

The idea is just to not have "nothing happen". That's all. Is that really a bad idea?

Quoting just a small part of this post because it has the most important bit.

But...yeah it is a bad idea. Imo. I want to clarify first that it's not "nothing happens" which fail forward is avoiding. You get that without fail forward, when someone is hanging onto a rope and fails, or when the guards are on your heels and you fail to pick the lock, and so forth. The issue isn't with nothing happens.

Instead, it seems to be with failed rolls adding new information which was unrelated to the check to the narrative. For example, the lockpick fails, and now there is a cook. What's-his-names song doesn't make him feel better and therefore a guard shows up. That sort of thing.

The consequences here are logical--a cook could be in the kitchen, a guard could hear a song--but they aren't part of the check. (Compare--ok, you can sing, but there's a 20% chance you'll attract a guard, regardless of success/failure). There's a sort of double jeopardy going on. And this makes these games more, well, narrative--they're about telling a story more than playing a game.

It's fine if that's what you want. But it is opposed to what I want, and it's fair to recognize that.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If in-character prep doesn't and can't improve your root chance of there being no complications, then why bother?

All your prep can do, it seems, is deny the GM access to some specific complications; meaning she has to dream up something else if "complication" comes up on the roll.

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.

What effect does it have to the root chance of hitting 7-9 on the roll? None? Therefore it's pointless - no matter what you do, you still have the same odds, so why bother?

 

[Faolyn]

What effect does it have to the root chance of hitting 7-9 on the roll? None? Therefore it's pointless - no matter what you do, you still have the same odds, so why bother?

Except there are modifiers to the roll. First off, your stat, but also moves you have on your sheet and ad hoc bonuses you may get.

 

[AlViking]

Except there are modifiers to the roll. First off, your stat, but also moves you have on your sheet and ad hoc bonuses you may get.

Your stat and things on your sheet are not what people are talking about. It's looking into a window or sending a familiar in to do some scouting or listening at the door. Stats and abilities will always apply no matter how careful you try to be.

 

[pemerton]

If not adventures than ongoing narrative development or whatever term you think appropriate. Another game could call it a series of tests or some other verbiage. Doesn't really change anything.

What I replied to, about adventures, was this:

Depends on how they approach the obstacles, but aren't most adventure scenarios a series of obstacles?

And that characterisation is (in my experience) not accurate for Burning Wheel.

Burning Wheel play is not about overcoming a series of obstacles in order to succeed at "an adventure". That is the "finish line" model I've referred to upthread, and gets things the wrong way around as far as Burning Wheel is concerned. Burning Wheel play starts with a situation - presented to the players by the GM - that in some way speaks to or puts pressure on some player-authored concern/goal/aspiration/relationship/etc of the PC(s). That prompts the player to declare an action for their PC. Which results in something happening - the situation changes, the GM says new stuff, and it goes on.

If you look at the other post @pemerton replied to in that comment, and the phrasing of yours, he was reacting to the idea of pre-written adventures.

Or even an "adventure" that is pre-conceived but not written down in a literal sense. It's the idea of "obstacles to be overcome in order to reach the finish line" that I'm saying is not applicable to BW. And I think not applicable to Apocalypse World either.