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

[Faolyn]

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.

The Firebird said that when they ran BitD, they felt like they were "cheating" because:

But, this fell apart when I tried running BitD myself. The illusion is only player facing. As the GM, when the player says "I want to open this lock", I start thinking:

ok, what will a success look like? I guess they get in clean. What about fail forward? Hmm, we've established that this is an estate, and the lord will want to eat breakfast early, so maybe the cook is getting in to start working on that. That's nice, it follows from the fiction.

Then there is no illusion and I know exactly what happens on success because I decided it. This made me feel dishonest and like I was cheating my players.

Except that these are all things that GMs typically think about when they write an adventure ahead of time. Who lives in this place, where will they be, and what are their Perception scores (or other game equivalents)? You know what will happen on a success or failure in a tradgame because there's only one option for both: success or failure. You know who is on the other side of the door or inside the chest because you placed it there ahead of time. Every single pre-written tradgame adventure I have ever read, for multiple systems (but especially (A)D&D), has included these elements.

For some reason, knowing exactly what happens on a success is OK if it was written down ahead of time but not if it was improvised in response to player actions.

To me, that makes no sense whatsoever, because they are entirely the same thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Less common, but the inverse is also a thing you see sometimes, and more commonly in actual play than elsewhere. I'm thinking about the falling from a window scene in Dimension 20's Mice & Murder, which amounted to Brennan Lee Mulligan asking for roll after roll until one succeeded and he could justify moving forward in the player's favor.

I'd argue (without having seen said AP) that's someone who really wants at least some degree of fail-forward but lacks the werewithal on one level or another to actually use a system that has it, or houserule it into the system they use.

(Alternatively its someone who wants lower lethality than their system gives, but still has the issues above.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Isn't "eeking out any way to improve the mechanical position of their PCs" exactly what players in a trad game is meant to be doing? Looking beyond their character sheets, engaging with the fiction, attempting to get successes without having to roll by making clever action declarations?

Depends on how one is using "trad". Not all trad games have the antipathy to actually, you know, working within the rules that some OSR types prefer.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Was there a cook in your BitD game?

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.

So if you make it up right before the roll was made, what's the problem?

 

[The Firebird]

The Firebird said that when they ran BitD, they felt like they were "cheating" because:

For some reason, knowing exactly what happens on a success is OK if it was written down ahead of time but not if it was improvised in response to player actions.

To me, that makes no sense whatsoever, because they are entirely the same thing.

I've clarified several times now that what I meant by cheating was the creation of the cook as a response to player failure. It has nothing to do with whether it was decided a week in advance or directly prior to the roll. (Or indeed, until after the roll, because then I will still know as the GM that I probably wouldn't have included a cook on a success. But this muddies the point somewhat and the simple statement still isn't coming across).

 

[Faolyn]

Thinking it up before makes a big difference to some people. I don't think it can be easily brushed aside.

How far in advance does it need to be made up? Weeks? Days? Hours?

 

[Thomas Shey]

For some reason, knowing exactly what happens on a success is OK if it was written down ahead of time but not if it was improvised in response to player actions.

To me, that makes no sense whatsoever, because they are entirely the same thing.

Hmmm, I think there's some issue of context of surrounding events mattering here; as an example, in the latter case the GM has a greater potential to be influenced, even if only subconsciously, by how things have gone for the players up to that point. Unless they're changing the pre-written material, that's much less of a risk there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Isn't "eeking out any way to improve the mechanical position of their PCs" exactly what players in a trad game is meant to be doing? Looking beyond their character sheets, engaging with the fiction, attempting to get successes without having to roll by making clever action declarations?

I do expect it, which is why I engage in a regular struggle between the PC success push by the players and the desire for grounded play and using the rules as intended and not just in ways that benefit the PC in question. That's part of the process too, but sometimes you just get tired of fighting PCs who refuse to roll skill checks that don't use their highest stat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How far in advance does it need to be made up? Weeks? Days? Hours?

Prior to the situation where it matters.

 

[Faolyn]

Prior to the situation where it matters.

So, making it up seconds before is OK?

Because I know that if the player says "I'm going to try to do this thing," my mind is already coming up with ideas of what can happen on a success.