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

[AlViking]

The point is that if the door doesn’t get opened, there’s no saving the people inside. Again, it was a simple example meant to show how cause and effect work.

What’s interesting to me is that the consequence being “connected” to the die roll seems to be the issue here… yet I would expect that many of those objecting to this, if not most or all, would say that in a traditional RPG paradigm, the GM can simply add something at any time.

So if the GM wants a cook to show up, or thinks it makes sense or what have you, he can just make it so.

Yet no one has an issue with that. No one is connecting this to anything the way they are with the die roll.

It’s strange.

There is a difference between some existing obstacle that you were not able to overcome stopping you from achieving your immediate goal (e.g. opening the lock) and adding something to the fiction (e.g. the cook) because of a failure. One is the GM being a referee for the interaction of the character with the world's fiction, the other is the GM modifying the fiction of the world for narrative reasons.

I see a clear distinction. Neither is right or wrong and I don't care how "strange" you find our semantic definitions or preferences during play.

 

[Maxperson]

The point is that if the door doesn’t get opened, there’s no saving the people inside. Again, it was a simple example meant to show how cause and effect work.

It's a failure of an example. Cause and effect is direct. If I punch you in the eye, the effect is a black eye. The cause of the people inside dying is the fire. Fire burns you, then you die. Cause and effect. Failing to pick the lock does not in any way, shape or form cause the death of those inside.

What’s interesting to me is that the consequence being “connected” to the die roll seems to be the issue here… yet I would expect that many of those objecting to this, if not most or all, would say that in a traditional RPG paradigm, the GM can simply add something at any time.

There is this issue because there is no cause and effect in action here. The relationship between the failure to pick the lock and the death of those inside is too distant. There's a distant connection, sure, but no cause.

To associate the deaths with the die roll to pick the lock is to assign cause and effect to something that doesn't have it, and we have an issue with that. You don't, and that's fine.

So if the GM wants a cook to show up, or thinks it makes sense or what have you, he can just make it so.

I agree. Or a dragon, or mind flayer, or Kermit the Frog. The DM can make lots of things so.

It doesn't make sense to us that such a die roll connection would happen, since it's overwhelmingly more likely that a failure to open the lock is just a failure to open the lock. It's very unlikely that there would be a cook, or guards, or a witness, or a dragon, or whatever.

 

[AlViking]

So you would have a clock. Exactly like the type of clocks we've been talking about. Or did you think that clocks only responded to player actions? Because I also posted the LU countdown which is triggered each round, not in response to player action.

In my games the clock never directly responds to what the players say or do. The players may be able to slow down or reverse the clock through the actions of their characters such as the situation where they can dump water on a fire to slow it's spread. In most cases nothing can be done to change the clock ticking down.

Other games of course will handle it differently, I'm not talking about other games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, what, you don't narrate them as a harrowing and tense situation?

I do (because darn my natural showmanship), but I value the mechanic primarily for its sim qualities.

 

[Faolyn]

In my games the clock never directly responds to what the players say or do. The players may be able to slow down or reverse the clock through the actions of their characters such as the situation where they can dump water on a fire to slow it's spread. In most cases nothing can be done to change the clock ticking down.

Other games of course will handle it differently, I'm not talking about other games.

Like I said, it's a clock.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's kind of the heart of this debate.

That's true, though I still think it unlikely that 6 seconds is going to make that much of a difference in the overwhelming number of times the party encounters this kind of thing.

It's not just granularity. I mean, that could factor in, but what seems more important to me is the focus on what the character is doing, as a motivating force in play. I'm not just trying to open a lock, I'm trying to recover the perloined letter which exonerates me from treason so I can go plead with the king to release my sister from bondage to the evil duke, as I swore I would.

So we can go up and down the layers of intent, but whatever actions I take will have some sort of impact at all those levels. Furthermore the GM is focused on all this stuff too. If my lock picking action fails, then I come into the entryway and smell smoke, better get that letter quick! What's not as it seems here? That smells like sandalwood and nightmare weed! Bad!

 

[hawkeyefan]

There is a difference between some existing obstacle that you were not able to overcome stopping you from achieving your immediate goal (e.g. opening the lock) and adding something to the fiction (e.g. the cook) because of a failure. One is the GM being a referee for the interaction of the character with the world's fiction, the other is the GM modifying the fiction of the world for narrative reasons.

I see a clear distinction. Neither is right or wrong and I don't care how "strange" you find our semantic definitions or preferences during play.

Yes... but again, you missed my point.

The GM can add anything at any time, right? Or must they have everything pre-determined in map and key format? Is the GM allowed to introduce new elements as needed?

Can the GM just add a cook to a situation?

It's a failure of an example. Cause and effect is direct. If I punch you in the eye, the effect is a black eye. The cause of the people inside dying is the fire. Fire burns you, then you die. Cause and effect. Failing to pick the lock does not in any way, shape or form cause the death of those inside.

No, cause and effect can be direct. It can also be indirect. If you punch me in the eye, yes, I may have a black eye. But then a bystander may tackle you to the ground. Or you may get arrested. Or I may retaliate and break your knee.

Then maybe you lose your job because of your violent behavior. You spend tons of money on legal fees, and that leaves you without savings, so you have to sell your house.

No one in the world... except folks in this thread... would ever describe those things as being unconnected to you punching me in the eye. Or say that those are not consequences of your action.

It's absurd to think of it that way.

All of which is just to point out that the criticism that "fail forward" or similar game processes result in "unconnected" events is inaccurate. It's a poorly thought-out criticism.

There is this issue because there is no cause and effect in action here. The relationship between the failure to pick the lock and the death of those inside is too distant. There's a distant connection, sure, but no cause.

But you've created the distance by adding in that they're upstairs and all that. What if they're literally on the other side of the door, unable to open it? Then there's no such distance.

To associate the deaths with the die roll to pick the lock is to assign cause and effect to something that doesn't have it, and we have an issue with that. You don't, and that's fine.

I agree. Or a dragon, or mind flayer, or Kermit the Frog. The DM can make lots of things so.

It doesn't make sense to us that such a die roll connection would happen, since it's overwhelmingly more likely that a failure to open the lock is just a failure to open the lock. It's very unlikely that there would be a cook, or guards, or a witness, or a dragon, or whatever.

So you connect the appearance of the cook to the die roll in fail forward. Okay. Let's say that the die roll is the Cause, and the appearance of the cook is the Effect.

What do you connect it to in the case of the GM deciding that there's a cook there? What's the Cause in this case?

 

[AlViking]

Yes... but again, you missed my point.

The GM can add anything at any time, right? Or must they have everything pre-determined in map and key format? Is the GM allowed to introduce new elements as needed?

Can the GM just add a cook to a situation?

The GM can have Godzilla jump out of a closet yelling "SURPRISE!" before annihilating the group with his atomic breath if they want. What I'm talking about is the approach I take to the game and no, I don't add things like a guard that's going to show up solely because you failed to pick a lock.

Different games and GMs will of course approach things differently. I just don't think complication on a failure works for D&D which is the game I play. First of all, it's a group activity with multiple people, frequently multiple people can make checks simultaneously or on the same round. Second I prefer a simulationist approach not a narrative, I never ever worry about moving the game forward and the goal of the character never changes anything. I'm just judging the actions they take and the results of those actions.

But we've explained this hundreds of times now. Do you have an actual question or are you just trying to wear us down to the point where we wave the white flag and surrender before Godzilla jumps out of a closet and yells "SURPRISE!"?

 

[Lanefan]

Correct. Since that has not been established, the player cannot unilaterally will it into existence. It might be the case that the GM frames a scene which reveals its position, generally as the result of a player move of some kind. Or it might be the case that the conversation that is play just naturally results in a slow accumulation of knowledge about where the ruby might be and where it definitely can't be until only one answer makes any sense. That's also a valid path, that doesn't specifically require anyone (GM or player) to declare anything specific. For example, one might overhear a guard saying that their employer doesn't trust the safes anymore, so they hid the ruby elsewhere. That doesn't establish where the ruby is, but it now conclusively establishes that no safe will contain the ruby, no matter where the PC(s) might look. Later, a bribed magician might say they helped furnish various magical means of storage to the possessor, which positively identifies that some kind of magical means were used to secret the ruby way. Finally, the player might hear the possessor curse at being unable to check on the ruby because their basement panic room is warded against planar travel--which, when combined with the other pieces of information, means that it must have been secreted away using Leomund's secret chest or something similar.

And all of this makes sense. However.....

In the total absence of establishing fiction, the player does not get to simply author whatever they like, whenever they like. That's against the rules. What is done must follow from the fiction, not simply invent fiction from whole cloth that happens to be convenient to the player. (At least in PbtA games. I can't speak to other systems, having not played them, but I'm certain they will have analogous requirements.)

....when I made this exact point (in different terms) in a long-ago thread I got shot down for it.

Yep. And as long as that information remains unknown to you, you do not have the ability to just fiat declare "It's here!"

Well, I have to then succeed on my roll. Failure, or even success-with-complication, means I haven't fiat-declared anything. But if memory serves, success is supposed to be sacrosanct and the GM can't deny or subvert it, correct? If yes, then in effect I can fiat-declare it to be there by stating my intent is to steal the ruby and my action to do so is to pick the safe, and then full-succeeding on the roll.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'm just saying it's a likely effect of the rules as designed.

Nope! That's exactly where you've gone wrong, and where I've repeatedly said you've gone wrong, but you refuse to consider it.

Instead, it is: Task - pick the safe. Intent - steal what is inside.

But I'm not here to steal whatever's in the safe. I'm here to steal the ruby, and may or may not even care what else might be in there if anything.

But the ruby's position isn't quantum. It just isn't actually known right now.

In this case there's no difference. The GM doesn't have its location in her notes because she doesn't have notes, so she doesn't know where it is. The players obviously don't know where it is. Instead, it shows up wherever the dice decide it'll show up, and until then its location is a quantum thing - it could be anywhere.

It's the same as the quantum-Ogre problem, where the Ogre shows up no matter which way the PCs go but until then its actual location is unknown.

A "quantum" thing means it could genuinely be anywhere. An unknown thing simply means...we don't know enough to know where it is. We're going to have to discover where it is first, in order to find it! That's...kind of the point of finding it?

Which is fine in map-and-key play because at least then the GM knows where it is, and finding it becomes, in effect, a puzzle for the players to solve. But when the GM doesn't know where it is either, then there's no fixed solution to the puzzle which makes it...well, no longer a puzzle, in any case; the players keep searching in different reasonable spots and the dice eventually tell both the GM and the players where it is.

Otherwise, by your logic, every time you don't know where your keys are IRL, they are in fact in each and every possible place they could theoretically be, simply because you don't know where they are yet.

Nope. There's a fixed and pre-set solution to the puzzle of where my keys are, I just don't know what it is at the moment. But (assuming someone isn't playing tricks on me and moving them around) when I find them I can have full confidence that's where they've been all along.

 

[Lanefan]

What: Has it been said? Does it rationally, with reasonable directness, follow from established fiction?

Knowing that the ruby is SOMEWHERE in a given house, and that this safe is in the house, does not seem like enough justification to me. But we are speaking with such high generality, with so little context, that I cannot rule out the possibility that the conversation that is play would have given reasonable context. The example is so decontextualized, it can't meaningfully be addressed. You have, more than once, explicitly said that I should assume that only the bare minimum of fiction has been established, more or less that the ONLY things the player knows are that the ruby is in the house somewhere, and that there is at least one locked safe. If I am to presume that absolutely nothing else has been established, and that the conversation that is play provides absolutely nothing else that would make further extension reasonable, then no, it is not valid. The very fact that it strikes you and others as unreasonable is why it isn't valid.

If the only info we-as-players have to go on* is that the ruby is in the house somewhere, and the GM hasn't determined its location ahead of time because the system says she's not supposed to do that, then by what mechanism is its actual location determined? Success on a search roll or similar? If yes, then while we could perhaps resolve it as one roll "We search the house for the Desert Rose", that would be a) boring and b) nowhere near granular enough if the house has other hazards to be avoided (e.g. a weak floor in the attic), obstacles to be bypassed (e.g. a locked safe), or interesting things that might be found by chance.

And so, its location is going to be determined the first time we full-succeed on a search or open-something roll.

* - let's for these purposes assume we have every reason to believe this information is correct.