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

[FrogReaver]

This doesn't shed any light, for me at least. What RPG are you describing here?

How would knowing that shed any light for you?

 

[pemerton]

I had a (probably inadvisable) idea that might be related to that, which was to propose* that

Narrativism (like Western dramatism) is concerned with problems of the human condition​

​

Simulationism is concerned with what something external or contextual to the human condition is like​

​

If right, that could mean that accuracy, realism, and immersion don't divide them. While on the other hand, differences between what sorts of things they might prefer to see in play seem pretty clear.

I don't think this is right at all. As @Campbell in this thread has pointed out, it's easy to have "simulationist" or "exploratory" play where what is explored is "problems of the human condition".

Those who love Planescape in D&D often laud it for this, too.

 

[The Firebird]

But the sort of game you play wouldn't have "weird entanglement", would it?

I'm asking what RPG actually exhibits this "weird entanglement", where (i) skill rolls are intended to have no meaning or consequence in the fiction except how well the PC performs the requisite bodily motions and (ii) failure is narrated in terms of an unhappy encounter or other unhappy outcome.

If there is no such RPG, why are people posting as if there is? And if there is such a RPG, I'm curious to know what it is.

Oh, I don't think there is one. When I play BitD or whatever, I feel like my character sheet ought to be about my abilities alone but it isn't, so I experience this feeling. But that's because the game is not designed for my preferences, not because the design is flawed.

 

[pemerton]

How would knowing that shed any light for you?

It might change my current opinion that "weird entanglement" is a spurious category for analysing RPGs.

 

[FrogReaver]

But the sort of game you play wouldn't have "weird entanglement", would it?

I'm asking what RPG actually exhibits this "weird entanglement", where (i) skill rolls are intended to have no meaning or consequence in the fiction except how well the PC performs the requisite bodily motions and (ii) failure is narrated in terms of an unhappy encounter or other unhappy outcome.

If there is no such RPG, why are people posting as if there is? And if there is such a RPG, I'm curious to know what it is.

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane. The purpose of this thread was that d&d players should be more open to other techniques, such as fail forward. Explaining that it’s not knee jerk conservatism but logical insights for why such methods aren’t adopted is intricately related to that.

 

[FrogReaver]

It might change my current opinion that "weird entanglement" is a spurious category for analysing RPGs.

And I think you will just argue that whatever game i find it in doesn’t actually have it because that’s what’s been happening for the last few pages.

 

[pemerton]

Sorry; must be the brain damage.

Speaking of which, I did find this - from the introduction to the blog - interesting:

You’re reading a rpg theory article about a rather specialized topic; even if you’ve played roleplaying games for years, it’s possible that the ideas and concerns expressed in this article are things you have never yet considered yourself. “RPG theory” is a form of art theory, an attempt by practitioners of roleplaying to understand, verbalize and model what happens during the activity. Although roleplaying is a pretty young art form, it already has let’s say three or four distinct schools of theory, and a bevy of specialized vocabulary. RPG theory is useful for hardcore hobbyists, but it takes as much study as any other art theory to get any insights, and those insights are generally of a sort only useful for veteran practitioners. Theory is something you move on to when you’ve exhausted the immediate development potential in your everyday play and want to develop your skills and understanding further. If you’re happy with your gaming, I propose that the time for RPG theory is not yet; come back to it when you’ve grown dissatisfied and are seeking solutions.

My specific RPG theory topic here goes back to the early ’00s; I’ll be restating and commenting upon a few parts of an influential rpg theory scheme called the GNS theory. .. . . This Ron Edwards fellow whose work I’ll be commenting on here is Ron Edwards, my rpg guru, a powerful game designer and the single most important theorist in the history of rpgs. You could do much worse than studying his work. Ron currently works out of Adept Play, a sort of combined blog-forum thing. I haven’t followed his work in real-time recently (I am frankly a bit intimidated by Ron, and don’t want to be a pest), but I have no doubt whatsoever that you’re making a grave mistake by reading my stuff instead of his.​

That last sentence is disarmingly modest! But as a whole this framing is pleasingly honest. It's not an "I like what I like" essay.

 

[FrogReaver]

4e D&D actually works best - in my view - played somewhat similarly to Burning Wheel. I learned a lot about how to GM 4e D&D from the BW rulebooks.

There is an example that, at the structural level, is basically identical to the screaming cook in the example skill challenge in the 4e D&D Rules Compendium: the players fail the last check in a skill challenge, and the consequence that is narrated by the GM is that an NPC whom the PCs crossed earlier in the challenge comes back with a gang, ready to beat them up.

And now you know why so many hated 4e d&d skill challenges. It’s the same reasons already expressed in this thread.

 

[pemerton]

And I think you will just argue that whatever game i find it in doesn’t actually have it because that’s what’s been happening for the last few pages.

What do you mean? I haven't argued against examples - the only example offered was by me, and @Enrahim told me that I was wrong.

So I'm asking if there is an example. I mean, do you have one in mind? If not, what do you think the point of the category is?

 

[pemerton]

And now you know why so many hated 4e d&d skill challenges. It’s the same reasons already expressed in this thread.

And?

@AlViking asked how fail forward could be done in D&D. I provided a pretty straightforward example.

Given that some people seem to think that skill challenges can be done in 5e D&D, presumably that shows how "fail forward" could be done in 5e as well.