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

[hawkeyefan]

I said "PbTA" earlier, but I was really thinking about my experience playing Starforged / Ironsworn. So everything I've said before and now is really me describing my struggle with Starforged.

What I find challenging about "looking at the surrounding situation and not just the task" is figuring out just how much of the surrounding context gets included into a roll.

With Starforged, I found myself caught between rolling for atomic tasks and abstracting entire chunks of the play, neither of which felt satisfactory. Rolling for atomic tasks felt boring and repetitive—it felt like for the most part, I kept using the same one or two moves over and over again, which didn't seem right. Abstracting too much of the play felt anticlimactic—a single roll to determine whether or not my guy can successfully infiltrate a high security lab to get intel, felt like there was no room for me to actually "play the game." (EDIT: Not saying these two extremes are my only choices. But just expressing my struggle finding the right middle ground for a satisfying experience.)

I'm also wondering if part of my struggle with Starforged is from trying to enforce linear time, i.e. the time in the fiction is (almost) always moving in the same direction as time in real life (also a habit I picked up from DND 5e). If I were to allow more flexibility with the temporal component, I could presumably do a single roll for my "infiltration missoin" described in my previous paragraph to determine a general outcome, then jump back to construct detailed scenes that may have happened during the mission and using rolls if appropriate. Non-linear time would also give me the ability to be more flexible with consequences—introducing elements I may not have previously thought about existing, like security guards.

Anyway, I am excited to retry Starforged with some fresh perspective. Sorry for my rambling, and thank you for responding to my post, and thanks to everyone who are arguing in good faith in this thread. It's very thought provoking.

Stay safe y'all.

I don't think there's one answer for your question here. I am only passingly familiar with Starforged, having read Ironsworn. I've not yet played or run either game.

But I expect that the best way to break it up is to look at the fictional situation and think about what the goal is... what is it that the characters want here? Then, look at what's in their way... maybe a person or group of people, maybe some geographic or natural element, maybe some kind of social situation... maybe some combination of any of these or others.

Maybe each of these elements is an obstacle of some sort, and will need to be addressed. Perhaps the PCs are trying to steal a starship... they'll need to get to the ship, which will likely involve some sneaking or some trickery, they may need to deal with guards along the way, they may need to access the ship or the place where it is, they will likely then need to start the ship and then pilot it to make their escape.

Each of these elements can be an obstacle that you try to resolve. You start with what's first, and then build on that from there, with a rough idea in mind. Depending on the outcome of the rolls, you then say what happens next. If they're caught sneaking, maybe it becomes a gunfight or a mad dash to get to the ship. If they manage to sneak their way to the ship, maybe there's an engineer onboard... how do they deal with him? And so on.

You should also consider each of the PCs and what they can do and bring to the situation. Not everything needs to be tailormade to engage everyone, but it's something to consider. With some time and experience, you'll get more comfortable with this approach. You may still have a couple of "go-tos" as far as consequences are concerned, and that's okay... rely on those when nothing else comes to mind, and keep things moving. There's nothing wrong with that. But definitely try to incorporate consequences that are specific to the situation at hand as much as possible. It makes each situation feel unique.

I hope that helps at least a little. Good luck with trying Starforged again. If you have more questions or want to chat about it with people here, there are several folks who would be glad to offer advice. Start a thread... if you tag me, I'll make sure to bring your thread to the attention of people who can help!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes they are connected, potentially, in the downstream. No they are not connected in the immediate.

It's a question of granularity. In the immediate, my failure to boot the door open merely means I'm still stuck outside the locked door.

No it doesn't. It also means no one inside is able to get out through the door.

I feel like I've taken crazy pills!

We won't and can't know whether my failure to get the door open led to (or helped lead to) the people inside burning until all other potentially-relevant actions, by me and by others, are resolved. The people inside may find a way to get out on their own. Someone else might get in through a back door while I'm pounding on the front. The fire department might show up and put the fire out. I might find a different way into the house.

All my inability to get through the door determines in the immediate is exactly that: I can't get in through that door. And for in-game task-failure consequences I usually look at the immediate results rather than downstream, as downstream can almost always still be affected by other factors and-or other subsequent actions.

Yes, and I'm sure when you get home that night and your wife says "Anything interesting happen today, honey?" all you'd reply was "Well, I tried to open a door but couldn't."

 

[Faolyn]

I miss the phone call if I can't open my door. I also miss it if I get home five minutes later and can open my door (unless the caller is stupidly persistent and lets it ring for five minutes, which means I probably don't want to answer it anyway). The ringing phone is not related to the task of opening my door.

But you didn't get home five minutes later. You got home now. By failing to open the door, you missed the call. The phone itself is not related to the task, but whether or not you answered the call is.

 

[Faolyn]

That assumes that the players know things the characters do not. I assume you've been reading other people's posts so you should know by now that for some of us @Lanefan included ideally the players only know what the characters know. characters. Therefore it should go without saying that your definition of timeclock in a game is not universal.

Players do know things that their characters do not. They know their hit points, AC, how many spell slots they have left, and all sorts of things. They know, or can easily figure out, that the monster goes right after them in the initiative order, which gives them an opportunity to plan (and unless you limit the players to six seconds, or however long your rounds are, they know more, and can think more deeply, about their actions). They know that a to-hit of 16 isn't enough to hit the monster. They know when they roll a nat 20.

And quite frankly, it is universal. Level Up--Advanced 5e, as traditional a game as original 5e--has countdowns, which can be imported unchanged into a regular D&D game (since that's what LU is designed to do):

Can a climber scale a crumbling cliff before it collapses? Can a thief pick a lock before the magical alarms go off? Can a halfling rogue recover the magic goblet and escape the dragon's lair before it wakes up?

A countdown takes place when there is an unknown time limit before something occurs. A deadly ritual might need to be dispelled, or a room might be filling up with poisonous gas.

The countdown is started by forming a pool of six-sided dice. The Narrator determines the size of that dice pool based on the circumstances.

At the start of each round, the dice pool is rolled. Any dice with a result of 6 are removed from the dice pool, and play continues. The countdown is not immutable: the Narrator might deem that certain actions during the scenario might add or remove a die from the countdown, and there will often be a way to stop it. However, sometimes a countdown cannot be stopped—the cliff is going to crumble, and you must reach the top before it does!

When the last die is removed from the dice pool the countdown expires.

(The actual book has tables and whatnot to show different probabilities.)

These are clocks. They're done in a different format from what PbtA and other narrative games typically use, and most of those games don't use rounds, but they're the exact same thing.

The purpose of a narrative game is for the players (and GM) to tell stories about the PCs (and the world around them). The stories can be deeply personal things with planned character arcs and goals, or they can be "I wanna raid the dungeon and kill all the monsters and take their gold." Both are stories. Thus, clocks (or countdowns) are used to bring moments of tension to those stories, to make things more interesting and enjoyable for the players.

And yes, players in a narrative game will know things that the PCs don't. The players are expected to not use that information in-character, just like they're expected to not use that information in tradgames (other than "skilled play" games). But that doesn't mean that the rising tension won't make the event more interesting to play, which is what clocks are designed to do.

 

[zakael19]

Like I said, this line of conversation has devolved into certain posters doing the online equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and and yelling "I DONT LIKE IT" over and over.

Lets go back to telling @pemerton he doesnt know how to run Burning Wheel .

 

[AlViking]

The example with the burning house was in no way about the cause of the fire. Again... let's set aside the game for now and just think about the situation. There's a burning building. You try to open the door to let people out. You fail to do so. People are then burned in the fire.

Do you see a connection between your action and the people being burned?



Even if you feel the need to break down things into specific increments of time like that (which is not a requirement, but certainly some games will attempt to do so), there are still consequences if you fail. Let's say someone tries for five rounds to kick in the door. What happens on round six? Is that connected to the failure to kick in the door? The answer to me would seem to be obviously "yes". But you seem to think the answer is "no".

What point are you trying to make and why ask the same question when you know how we'll answer? Going beyond that what are you trying to prove?

The whole narrative game fail forward concept is that if a test fails, something interesting happens to keep the game moving forward. Something changes in the fiction or something is added. Right? I don't do that. Nothing happens because of a failure unless it's logically caused by the failure (failed climb check causes fall, etc.). If you fail to open the door, nothing in the fiction is changed that was not already going to happen. That's all. It is then up to the characters to decide what to do next.

There is no "the lockpick failed so therefore the trapped individual was injured" in my game. The characters are in charge of what their actions are after the failure, as DM I'm determining what's happening on the other side of the door that was going to happen anyway. Something can happen dependent on the decisions of the other players. If the lockpick failed, the wizard had a dimension door prepped or the barbarian was ready to crash through the window, perhaps the cleric was readying a create water spell to slow down the flames. But those things triggered based on the failures? They were things triggered by player declarations because the players drive the action, not the DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Players do know things that their characters do not. They know their hit points, AC, how many spell slots they have left, and all sorts of things. They know, or can easily figure out, that the monster goes right after them in the initiative order, which gives them an opportunity to plan (and unless you limit the players to six seconds, or however long your rounds are, they know more, and can think more deeply, about their actions). They know that a to-hit of 16 isn't enough to hit the monster. They know when they roll a nat 20.

And quite frankly, it is universal. Level Up--Advanced 5e, as traditional a game as original 5e--has countdowns, which can be imported unchanged into a regular D&D game (since that's what LU is designed to do):


(The actual book has tables and whatnot to show different probabilities.)

These are clocks. They're done in a different format from what PbtA and other narrative games typically use, and most of those games don't use rounds, but they're the exact same thing.

The purpose of a narrative game is for the players (and GM) to tell stories about the PCs (and the world around them). The stories can be deeply personal things with planned character arcs and goals, or they can be "I wanna raid the dungeon and kill all the monsters and take their gold." Both are stories. Thus, clocks (or countdowns) are used to bring moments of tension to those stories, to make things more interesting and enjoyable for the players.

And yes, players in a narrative game will know things that the PCs don't. The players are expected to not use that information in-character, just like they're expected to not use that information in tradgames (other than "skilled play" games). But that doesn't mean that the rising tension won't make the event more interesting to play, which is what clocks are designed to do.

Level Up's description of countdowns is pretty darn trad, actually. I just read it and didn't see anything about adding tension, just a way to simulate a situation with an unknown time limit, some what abstractly.

 

[AlViking]

Players do know things that their characters do not. They know their hit points, AC, how many spell slots they have left, and all sorts of things. They know, or can easily figure out, that the monster goes right after them in the initiative order, which gives them an opportunity to plan (and unless you limit the players to six seconds, or however long your rounds are, they know more, and can think more deeply, about their actions). They know that a to-hit of 16 isn't enough to hit the monster. They know when they roll a nat 20.

And quite frankly, it is universal. Level Up--Advanced 5e, as traditional a game as original 5e--has countdowns, which can be imported unchanged into a regular D&D game (since that's what LU is designed to do):


(The actual book has tables and whatnot to show different probabilities.)

These are clocks. They're done in a different format from what PbtA and other narrative games typically use, and most of those games don't use rounds, but they're the exact same thing.

The purpose of a narrative game is for the players (and GM) to tell stories about the PCs (and the world around them). The stories can be deeply personal things with planned character arcs and goals, or they can be "I wanna raid the dungeon and kill all the monsters and take their gold." Both are stories. Thus, clocks (or countdowns) are used to bring moments of tension to those stories, to make things more interesting and enjoyable for the players.

And yes, players in a narrative game will know things that the PCs don't. The players are expected to not use that information in-character, just like they're expected to not use that information in tradgames (other than "skilled play" games). But that doesn't mean that the rising tension won't make the event more interesting to play, which is what clocks are designed to do.

In D&D and related games the assumption is that the players only know the HP and AC of their characters in games I've played. Players may share the information with other members of the group, although some DMs frown on exact HP details. On the other hand we never know the specific HP of the monsters, although we can usually guess the AC of the enemy after a round or two unless the GM decides to tell us.

I do not use timeclocks like you do and apparently neither do at least some of the other people on this forum. Ipso facto your definition is not universal. Other games of course have their own rules but you were in a discussion with someone who uses a D&D variant.

 

[Lanefan]

Players do know things that their characters do not. They know their hit points, AC, how many spell slots they have left, and all sorts of things. They know, or can easily figure out, that the monster goes right after them in the initiative order, which gives them an opportunity to plan (and unless you limit the players to six seconds, or however long your rounds are, they know more, and can think more deeply, about their actions). They know that a to-hit of 16 isn't enough to hit the monster. They know when they roll a nat 20.

And quite frankly, it is universal. Level Up--Advanced 5e, as traditional a game as original 5e--has countdowns, which can be imported unchanged into a regular D&D game (since that's what LU is designed to do):


(The actual book has tables and whatnot to show different probabilities.)

These are clocks. They're done in a different format from what PbtA and other narrative games typically use, and most of those games don't use rounds, but they're the exact same thing.

The purpose of a narrative game is for the players (and GM) to tell stories about the PCs (and the world around them). The stories can be deeply personal things with planned character arcs and goals, or they can be "I wanna raid the dungeon and kill all the monsters and take their gold." Both are stories. Thus, clocks (or countdowns) are used to bring moments of tension to those stories, to make things more interesting and enjoyable for the players.

And yes, players in a narrative game will know things that the PCs don't. The players are expected to not use that information in-character, just like they're expected to not use that information in tradgames (other than "skilled play" games). But that doesn't mean that the rising tension won't make the event more interesting to play, which is what clocks are designed to do.

Part of the disconnect here is that you seem to be using "clock" to refer to some form of metagame countdown timer unrelated to in-fiction time where I (and maybe others) see "clock" as shorthand for "in-fiction time deadline".

 

[zakael19]

Part of the disconnect here is that you seem to be using "clock" to refer to some form of metagame countdown timer unrelated to in-fiction time where I (and maybe others) see "clock" as shorthand for "in-fiction time deadline".

For those of us not living under purposeful rocks, "clock" in TTRPG parlance has become widely used to denote a deliberate progress counter of some sort; which may or may not be player facing. Widely popularized by Blades in the Dark, the concept shows up all over the advice and play spaces for any number of games inclusive of 5e (4e obviously had Skill Challenges which are their own form of progress counter).

Like, it's literally everywhere.