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

[FrogReaver]

I didn't make up the example, and I get that it's a bad one since the cook would almost surely not be in the kitchen, but it's the one that was brought up and is being discussed.

Right and it’s been useful. It’s teased out a lot of I’m okay with this variation of it but not with this. I don’t like that because X. Etc.

In discussions I much prefer simple examples that we can easily modify, because they drive to such points.

I guess if one’s hypothesis is that ‘if people just seen a better example there issues would vanish’ the choice of hypothetical example might really matter, but if it’s just to tease out where the issues lie and what exactly the issues are then something like the cook example is infinitely better IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not talking about the word. As @Campbell has repeatedly posted in this thread, I'm talking about what play is about. What it is like.

You keep posting as if Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World aspire to produce an experience comparable to AD&D play, except using slightly different rules for PC building and which dice to roll. But they don't.

Agreed. Why are we still talking about this then? We are playing very different games, and (hopefully) we're all ok with that.

 

[Gimby]

Agreed. Why are we still talking about this then? We are playing very different games, and (hopefully) we're all ok with that.

Well, because people keep posting about it.

 

[pemerton]

What?! You didn't enjoy getting most of the way through making a Traveler character only to have it die before it was even finished being made?

@pemerton is that little gem in the more current versions?

I don't know. I play the 1977 version, with bits of 1981 and the supplements/additional books, plus some White Dwarf stuff, mixed in.

Personally I think random PC gen, with the chance of death as a constraint, is fairly fundamental to the Traveller experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What?! You didn't enjoy getting most of the way through making a Traveler character only to have it die before it was even finished being made?

@pemerton is that little gem in the more current versions?

I always found that an endearing quirk of the game.

 

[The Firebird]

As I've already posted, "unrelated to the check" is false for two reasons:

(1) The point of the check is to find out if doing the thing goes well or poorly.

(2) The consequence is implicit in the context of the check - this is what Apocalypse World and similar games express via the notion that soft moves => hard moves.

I understand that this is how narrative systems do it. I don't care for this approach.

And this is where I find apparent double standards for conversation a bit frustrating. Are you setting out to state your preferences? Or to describe my RPGing? I don't really care which, but upthread you seemed to assert the first but here you're doing the second. And in that case, I assume that you are happy for me to describe yours.

I'm describing the reason for my preferences. For me games are about overcoming challenges and exploring a world. If that's not the case for you, no problem.

 

[pemerton]

I understand that this is how narrative systems do it. I don't care for this approach.

OK. But when talking about RPGs that use "fail forward", it doesn't seem right to say that they make a decision that is "unconnected". Like it would be weird to categorise a move in chess as breaking the rules, by reference to the rules of draughts.

I'm describing the reason for my preferences. For me games are about overcoming challenges and exploring a world. If that's not the case for you, no problem.

The second sentence seems to be a statement of what games are, not what games you like.

I mean, I don't really enjoy snakes and ladders, because it involves no decision-making and the counting and moving is pretty trivial. I haven't played it since my children were small. But that doesn't mean it's not a game.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK. But when talking about RPGs that use "fail forward", it doesn't seem right to say that they make a decision that is "unconnected". Like it would be weird to categorise a move in chess as breaking the rules, by reference to the rules of draughts.

The purpose of calling it unconnected is not to make a statement about the legality of the move by the rules of whatever narrativist game is being played. We believe you that it’s a valid move and being used correctly in your examples. None of that has any bearing on what we mean by the connectedness of it.

As such I don’t understand this analogy at all. Not one bit.

Also, draughts = checkers for us Americans. (Had to google that one).

 

[SableWyvern]

What?! You didn't enjoy getting most of the way through making a Traveler character only to have it die before it was even finished being made?

Meh. You just wasted a whole five minutes, and it was your choice to push your luck trying to get a bunch of extra skills knowing full well that you were already extremely lucky to have survived two terms as a scout.

Edit: to answer your follow-up question, modern versions have much more involved and lengthy character gen, but have removed character death.

 

[The Firebird]

The second sentence seems to be a statement of what games are, not what games you like.

I mean, I don't really enjoy snakes and ladders, because it involves no decision-making and the counting and moving is pretty trivial. I haven't played it since my children were small. But that doesn't mean it's not a game.

To your first point, what @FrogReaver said. To the one I've quoted -- likewise, my purpose is not to draw a circle around the concept of game and leave you outside of it.