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

[The Firebird]

As an aside I 100% would recommend it for the "narrative 4e" crowd like myself, @pemerton and Manbearcat (anyone know what happened to his account)?

The account was banned earlier this thread.

 

[The Firebird]

If anything, you know more of what will happen if you plan it out ahead of time (which is "more dishonest" according to The Firebird's feelings on the matter).

The example was dishonest imo because the cook was placed there on a failure but not a success. It had nothing to do with the timing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The account was banned earlier this thread.

Thank you and I'm disappointed but can't say I'm shocked.

 

[Faolyn]

Seperate point from the previous, which was relevant for the situation you proposed where a planned test actually can have wide reaching consequences. Most tests in trad is as spontaneous as in the alternative, and the key difference between those is scope. A test in a fail forward system binds the GM to more than just what the result of the task at hand is. Trad only resolves the task, and most of the time in a way that is not open for interpretation at all.

The point is, if the GM has plotted out the adventure, then they know what will happen on both a success and failure. It's already been written down and mapped out. That's what @The Firebird said felt like cheating to them--even though, as has been said, a failure in an FF game isn't pass/fail, and therefore isn't pre-known by the GM.

So how is writing it down ahead of time not cheating but improvising some or all of it is cheating? Does writing it down make it magically more real or official and improvising it is fake? Are trad gamers not allowed to deviate from what is written down? Are trad gamers not allowed to write their own adventures, because then they're making it up and therefore cheating? Somehow, I don't think any of those things the case.

 

[Faolyn]

The example was dishonest imo because the cook was placed there on a failure but not a success. It had nothing to do with the timing.

How do you know that the cook wasn't going to be there on a success? Did you peek at the adventure ahead of time?

 

[The Firebird]

That's what @The Firebird said felt like cheating to them--even though, as has been said, a failure in an FF game isn't pass/fail, and therefore isn't pre-known by the GM.

No. My claim about cheating the players was not about when the decision was made; it was about the existence of the cook.

How do you know that the cook wasn't going to be there on a success? Did you peek at the adventure ahead of time?

I, the GM, read the adventure ahead of time. Or made it up ahead of time. Or made it up right before the roll was made.

 

[Enrahim]

@The Firebird said:


There's still no illusion either way. Whether you think it through carefully ahead of time or completely ad-lib it at the moment, you know what's going to happen. If anything, you know more of what will happen if you plan it out ahead of time (which is "more dishonest" according to The Firebird's feelings on the matter). If you would normally try to make both sides cool when planning it, then there's no bias if you improvise it to be cool.

The only difference is still whether you did this before hand or on the spot.

Also, the more you actually do narrative gaming, the more you learn how to do it consistently, and the more quickly you can consider both sides. It's just a matter of practice.

This is the illusion described:

There was enough of a disconnect and enough of a veil that the world seemed organic.

This illusion was clearly broken. To claim there is no illusion make no sense to me?

I can play a very carefully prepared living world, and even if I know all the tip and tricks to make it work, I actualy feel like it is organic. I have even experienced this as a GM, that how things play out with unexpected player input make the world feel alive even for me.

 

[Enrahim]

The point is, if the GM has plotted out the adventure, then they know what will happen on both a success and failure. It's already been written down and mapped out. That's what @The Firebird said felt like cheating to them--even though, as has been said, a failure in an FF game isn't pass/fail, and therefore isn't pre-known by the GM.

So how is writing it down ahead of time not cheating but improvising some or all of it is cheating? Does writing it down make it magically more real or official and improvising it is fake? Are trad gamers not allowed to deviate from what is written down? Are trad gamers not allowed to write their own adventures, because then they're making it up and therefore cheating? Somehow, I don't think any of those things the case.

Could you please explain to me what sort of adventure we are talking about, and why we are talking about preplanned adventures at all? I feel like I must have missed some context, as it seem like you are talking about someone having written a chose your own adventure book and are reading that aloud choices and everything for some players? For the record, that is not even how the most railroad of trad play work - and certanly not a living world sandbox that I presume is the trad style we are generally talking about in this thread.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No. My claim about cheating the players was not about when the decision was made; it was about the existence of the cook.

And this is entirely a matter of the game being played; picking up the ball and running with it is cheating in association football but 100% central to the game in Rugby football.

I, the GM, read the adventure ahead of time. Or made it up ahead of time. Or made it up right before the roll was made.

And if the rules explicitly allow me, as the GM, to introduce a new character as the result of a failed roll (as they do in almost everything descended from Apocalypse World)?

 

[Professor Murder]

blinks at the page count