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

[Pedantic]

I mean, there might be exceptions? But they're going to be VASTLY outnumbered by things that follow the pattern. Rules design is a really, really difficult thing. Hoping that your artists happened to send you art that worked for making good rules does not sound like a productive game plan, even if it coincidentally happened to work out for some people previously.

I mean, that's kind of obviously the most unlikely way to approach a design that way; no one is commissioning art in hopes it inspires them to a game design epiphany. All of my examples included either an extensive IP, or an artist with a pretty big body of work and a consistent tone/subject matter. The broader point though, that you may well start with art or theme, is absolutely valid.

Wingspan is another quite strong example; it's a fine game, but mechanically it's a pretty standard card driven tableau builder. Hargrave's genius was primarily in identifying a lot of people like birds, and were underserved by the existing thematic range of similar games (all pretty much fantasy/sci-fi/colonialism at the time) and then very pointedly deploying artwork and bird facts to drive the theme home.

Frankly, I generally support your call for better game design in TTRPGs, which are often plagued by stupid problems, like misaligned incentives, poor uses of randomness, and sometimes just straight up bad math. I just think you're too reductive about what good design is.

 

[Lanefan]

Common sense in life. Forget play for a minute and think about how things work in the real world.

If you forget to pick up milk at the store, no milk may not be the only consequence. Maybe your spouse will he annoyed with you. Maybe your kids will go without breakfast in the morning. Maybe one of them will be so hungry they can’t concentrate and they flunk a test.

Who knows exactly what could happen? But for any failure there are a number of possible consequences. This is just the way the world works.

Sure. Your milk example is a stripped-down version of the "butterfly effect" where one minor thing leads to another until something major happens.

To then apply this to gaming, I would say that limiting yourself to just “the lock doesn’t open” as the only consequence of a failed pick lock attempt is actually far more artificial than having the GM come up with a consequence.

"The lock doesn't open and that's it" isn't the only possible consequence but by itself it should be a possible consequence, where nothing else happens except you're still stuck where you were and have to try a different approach or go a different way.

You can certainly play that way if you like… but stop saying that approach makes more sense and describing others as involving “unconnected” things. Your take is the one that’s more unconnected.

I can see the point, though. If a failed attempt at something game-mechanically causes an unrelated thing to occur that would not have happened otherwise, it seems a bit "quantum".

It's like having a module say (and sadly, I've seen examples of this) "Only on a failed climb attempt will any guards come by; if the attempt succeeds then no guards will appear, no matter how long the successful attempt may take".

 

[hawkeyefan]

In so far as the dice roll to open the lock is concerned? Yes, absolutely.

Different rules and different play priorities, you see.

Forget the game for a moment.

If you are trying to unlock the door of a burning building, and you fail to do so, and someone inside is then badly burned… you would describe these things as unconnected?

That’s the question I’m asking. It’s not about rules or play priorities.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure. Your milk example is a stripped-down version of the "butterfly effect" where one minor thing leads to another until something major happens.

Not necessarily. Thethings can all be minor or all be major. The point is that they are sensible consequences of the situation.

"The lock doesn't open and that's it" isn't the only possible consequence but by itself it should be a possible consequence, where nothing else happens except you're still stuck where you were and have to try a different approach or go a different way.

It depends on the game. If we’re talking about using fail forward in D&D, then yes, this is always an option if it’s the outcome that makes sense.

I can see the point, though. If a failed attempt at something game-mechanically causes an unrelated thing to occur that would not have happened otherwise, it seems a bit "quantum".

Nothing that’s been mentioned is unrelated.

You all seem to have very strange ideas of cause and effect.

It's like having a module say (and sadly, I've seen examples of this) "Only on a failed climb attempt will any guards come by; if the attempt succeeds then no guards will appear, no matter how long the successful attempt may take".

I don’t know what this means. How do you know how long the climb takes?

And couldn’t a failed climb mean that the climber slips and falls, and perhaps cries out? Or that a loose stone breaks free and a lot of noise is made?

This easily could be a case of “failed roll = guards show up”.

Again… this idea of ability or skill checks being used in isolation, with no possible consequences just makes no sense to me at all.

 

[SableWyvern]

See my edit.

But I can't imagine what a GM's job is, if not to make things happen. That's basically the definition, no matter how narrative, or non-narrative, the game is.

How about "adjudicating the things the players are making (or trying to make) happen"? Or, "assessing the results of things that have happened." Also, "Describing the situation."

In play, while sometimes I make things happen, I certainly wouldn't say that's my primary function -- not by a long way.

 

[pemerton]

Why didn't you mention this 'reasonable' requirement of the hope in the initial post?

It was one of a billion things I didn't talk about.

Here is what I said, in the "initial post":

when it comes to "declaring actions" in RPGing, the key question is who gets to decide what descriptions of the PCs' actions are true, and how.

It's true that some players are content with getting to decide only very "thin" descriptions, focused on the character's bodily movements (analogous to Davidson's "I flip the switch"), like I attack the Orc with my sword or I wink at the maiden or I hide from the soldiers in the barn or I bring the child into the Tiny Hut. But many players want to have some influence over the truth of "thicker" descriptions of their PCs' actions, like I kill the Orc with my sword or I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink or I avoid confrontation with the soldiers by hiding in the barn or I rescue the child, first by providing shelter in the Tiny Hut.

<snip>

If players were not intended to have some influence over how their actions are resolved, and the outcomes that follow from their PC's bodily motions - which is to say, if players were not intended to have some influence not only over the truth of then descriptions but also over the truth of thick descriptions - then why would their be action resolution mechanics at all?​

When the player declares "I pick the lock", then - as you say - there will almost always be some other description, beyond "the lock is now open", that they hope to become true. Its failure to become true would be an in-fiction consequence of the character failing to pick the lock as they hoped.

This post is not mysterious, nor especially complicated. It says that:

*Some players are content with getting to decide only very thin descriptions, focused on bodily movements (like "I flip the switch" or "I (try and) pick the lock");

*However, many players want to have some influence over the truth of "thicker" descriptions of their PCs' actions (and, as a special case of this, when a player declares "I (try and) pick the lock" there will normally be some other, "thicker", description that they hope to become true);

*If players were not intended to have some such influence, then action resolution mechanics would be largely unnecessary (eg if all the player can influence is "I move my lockpicks in the lock, so as to try and pick the lock", then the GM could just make up the rest);

*The failure of a hoped-for "thicker" description to come true would be an in-fiction consequence of the character failing to do as they hoped.​

These are general propositions about RPG play: about what many players hope to achieve via their action declarations, and about the rationale for having action resolution mechanics. As I've repeatedly posted now, they say nothing about what sorts of descriptions are permissible in the context of action declaration, and will factor into action resolution. That's not what the post was about.

So I agree, but why does the hope need to be reasonable?

<snip>

How is it determined what counts as a permissible action declaration? The System?

I don't know what you mean by "the System". If you mean this - "a means by which in-game events are determined to occur" - then the answer, yes, the system determines permissible action declarations, is tautological.

If you mean "the published rules" then the answer is, it will depend on the rulebook. Some published rules discuss what is or isn't a permissible action declaration (eg 4e D&D does, in its DMG; Burning Wheel does; HeroQuest Revised does), but many don't (eg I don't think Classic Traveller, or AD&D, ever discusses this; Moldvay Basic touches on it, a bit obliquely, in chapter 8).

My view is that if a group of people trying to play a RPG together can't come to agreement on whether or not a player's would-be action declaration is permissible, then they have a pretty big issue. But as I wrote in the previous paragraph, a lot of rulebooks leave it up to the group to resolve this issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Forget the game for a moment.

If you are trying to unlock the door of a burning building, and you fail to do so, and someone inside is then badly burned… you would describe these things as unconnected?

That’s the question I’m asking. It’s not about rules or play priorities.

In the fiction, the PC may very well connect the two events (although they may very not be). In play, in regards to the action being taken, they absolutely are not.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

Common sense in life. Forget play for a minute and think about how things work in the real world.

If you forget to pick up milk at the store, no milk may not be the only consequence. Maybe your spouse will he annoyed with you. Maybe your kids will go without breakfast in the morning. Maybe one of them will be so hungry they can’t concentrate and they flunk a test.

Who knows exactly what could happen? But for any failure there are a number of possible consequences. This is just the way the world works.

To then apply this to gaming, I would say that limiting yourself to just “the lock doesn’t open” as the only consequence of a failed pick lock attempt is actually far more artificial than having the GM come up with a consequence.

You can certainly play that way if you like… but stop saying that approach makes more sense and describing others as involving “unconnected” things. Your take is the one that’s more unconnected.

I've been lurking around this thread for a while, but this discussion has been very eye-opening, and it's really helping me understand the difference in mindset between simulationist vs narrative game. I feel like I now understand what folks mean when they say something like, "They are playing PbTA like DND."

I have been thinking of each dice check exactly the way @AlViking or @Lanefan describing their d20 checks in their games, removed from the context. In some sense, I feel like DND has trained me to think in this manner—given a situation, remove the context to figure out the essense of the task (to figure out which ability check / save to use). It doesn't matter what the context is, for lockpicking, it should always be the same check.

If I am understanding correctly, the mechanics of PbTA games necessitate context be taken into account, and there is no universal check for "picking a lock." And it's never about just "picking a lock"—the context determines which move should be triggered (if any) and how the consequences should be resolved, e.g. facing a risky situation vs doing research vs aiding someone.

 

[pemerton]

In the fiction, the PC may very well connect the two events (although they may very not be). In play, in regards to the action being taken, they absolutely are not.

I think @hawkeyefan's point is simpler than you are making it out to be. It is not a point about game play; it is a simple point about cause and effect.

The burning building example is the same as my ringing phone and pouring rain examples:

*I wasn't able to open the door, and therefore was drenched by the pouring rain.

*I wasn't able to open the door, and therefore wasn't able to pick up the ringing telephone.

*I wasn't able to open the door, and therefore the people trapped inside the burning building suffered terrible injuries.​

These are all straightforward examples in which the inability to open the door means that something happens, which might have been prevented/avoided had the person who was trying to open the door been able to do so:

*Had I been able to open the door, I would have thus got inside out of the rain.

*Had I been able to open the door, I would have thus got inside to answer the phone.

*Had I been able to open the door, I would have been able to get the people trapped inside out of the burning house.​

These all illustrate how it is quite obvious that failing to open a door might have consequences that go beyond the door was not opened.

What implications, for game design and game play, follow from that simple observation is a further question.

 

[pemerton]

If I am understanding correctly, the mechanics of PbTA games necessitate context be taken into account, and there is no universal check for "picking a lock." And it's never about just "picking a lock"—the context determines which move should be triggered (if any) and how the consequences should be resolved, e.g. facing a risky situation vs doing research vs aiding someone.

I think this will depend on what the game is. But the PbtA games I'm familiar with - mostly AW and DW - say when a player-side move is triggered, in accordance with the core rule "if you do it, you do it". Apocalypse World doesn't have a move that is triggered when you try and pick a lock - that's why, in the imagined example that I posted upthread, I suggested that an attempt to get through a lock in a hurry would be Acting Under Fire:

what was the character doing? Maybe they're the advance scout for the assault on Dremmer's compound:

First, let's imagine the player recites their PC's knowledge - it's a bit artificial as an example of play, but provides some context.

"I know that Dremmer has a storeroom at the edge of the compound, with a gate for taking deliveries. There's a fancy electronic lock on it, so it's not well guarded. I reckon I can crack that lock and sneak in."

The GM nods: "OK, so you're at the gate to the storeroom. It's locked like you expected. It's not well guarded, but that doesn't mean no one ever comes by here. You haven't got all night."

"OK, I bust out my tools and work on the lock, as quickly as I can."

"That Acting Under Fire, and the fire is - you'll be spotted before you're in." The player rolls, and succeeds on a 7 to 9. The GM offers an ugly choice: "You get it open, but you can hear someone's coming. And you can't see yet what's on the other side of the gate. Do you go through into whatever's there? Or wait to see who comes?"

The player decides to go in. "There's someone in there with a torch. Looks like Dremmer's cook Pattycakes, come to grab a fresh bag of chowder powder. What do you do?"

At this point the player has a few choices, but let's suppose that, whatever they do, it fails on a 6 or less. And so the GM narrates that Pattycakes spots them and screams.

I assume that DW could play out in a pretty similar sort of way.

Looking at my DW rulebook, I see (on p 138) that the Thief has this move:

Tricks of the Trade
When you pick locks or pockets or disable traps, roll+DEX. ✴On a 10+, you do it, no problem. ✴On a 7–9, you still do it, but the GM will offer you two options between suspicion, danger, or cost.​

My example from AW is pretty much two options between danger (the someone coming, probably a guard) or suspicion (having to bluff or sneak one's way past Pattycakes). The difference is that, in the Tricks of the Trade case, Pattycakes is suspicious but can't be immediately dangerous.