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

[Campbell]

I was under the impression that the line of discussion was about how to apply the fail-forward principle in D&D (while adhering to D&D's mechanics).

The line of discussion came out of an example of @pemerton provided of his Burning Wheel game in a response to a point unrelated to fail forward (I believe it was in response to a poster who was conflating games like FATE with Narrativist games like Burning Wheel unbidden in a general description of what their sandboxing is not like). Instead of engaging with the point of discussion we instead had a point-by-point cross examination of Burning Wheel as a game that included psychological analysis of the people who play it. Fail forward as a principle came up in that cross examination with some posters not accepting the game's right to define its own terms and the way it works.

Fail forward as applied to more mainstream games like D&D came up only in regard to an example @AlViking pulled from some website somewhere.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Seems a reasonable enough action declaration in any game.

Agreed. At least I can't think of a game where it or something very similar wouldn't be reasonable.

The difference in a more traditional game being that it's the DM who determines (by one means or another) whether any of Jonno's fishing buddies happen to be there, and then if he does find any the DM determines - again by one means or another - just how keen those buddies are to help Jonno and-or what they think of him.

The end result in play in this case, when looked at in hindsight, could well be indistinguishable from one system to the other.

And this all assumes, I assume, that nobody specific among the fishers has been established in prior fiction. For example if in past play Jonno's told stories to the party about Captain Walsey and how she brought them home safe in the Great Gale of '93 in a boat that had every business being sunk by that storm etc. etc. then maybe it's Captain Walsey specifically he's looking for now, or another fellow survivor from that crew....or maybe he wants to avoid them as his stories are stolen from the real survivors just to gain free beer in the bars, and he was never in fact aboard Walsey's boat.

Sure, I agree with that assessment broadly. I wasn't meaning to make any explicit comparison to other games, just to talk about Circles in BW. I agree that the end result and/or the fiction could be very similar in many different games, but, to me at least, the process is the interesting part.

 

[AlViking]

I was under the impression that the line of discussion was about how to apply the fail-forward principle in D&D (while adhering to D&D's mechanics).

Long ago, on a page far, far away I asked the question something along the lines of "What do these narrative games have to do with D&D and is there anything we could apply to the game the forum is dedicated to?" Then, when people kept giving examples and explanations that didn't really apply to D&D I went searching the internet and found a couple of examples that could be applied. One was that the characters needed a map in an estate, the rogue tries to pick the lock and fails. The blogger suggestion was to say that the door opens anyway but that the DM should make it more complicated by having a cook in the kitchen who screams for help*.

So here we are, arguing over quantum cooks and that random encounters are exactly the same thing as being harassed by a guard because you failed a sing check along with things like "nothing happens" on a failed check is bad.

*My answer to this is that nothing happens - the door remains locked. On the other hand, there will be other options to get the map but they may be more costly, risky or both.

 

[JConstantine]

I would never describe its length at all unless asked. [snip]
Because the players assume a patch of grass is a putting green doesn't mean it is one, nor does it mean it suddenly changes height because an ambush is triggered.

This seems flawed to me. The GM acts as the PCs' senses and needs to accurately convey information they would have. In the modern era, particularly urban and sub-urban environments, grass is typically short and green, and it's understandable to me that a player would assume such without clarification. Long grass is enough of a deviation from the norm for most players that I think it warrants clarifying on that basis alone, regardless of potential ambush.

 

[JConstantine]

If there had been a cook in the kitchen on a success on the pick lock, absolutely noone has a problem with the situation. The problem with the situation happens only when it is known that there would't be a cook on a success.

This reminds me of a similar discussion that happened regarding Dragon Age 2: companion romance options being "Hawke-sexual".

For those unfamiliar with the series, in each game, there have been several companion characters who could be romanced. In the first game, Dragon Age: Origins, those romance options all had fixed sexualities - Alistair was a heterosexual male who could only be romanced by a female PC, Morrigan was a heterosexual female who could only be romanced by a male PC, Leliana was a bisexual female and Zevran a pansexual male so both could be romanced by any PC.

With Dragon Age 2, however, every romance option could be romanced by the PC (pre-named Hawke) regardless of gender, i.e "Hawke-sexual". This was seen as unrealistic and a step back in terms of representation by a subset of players. The devs countered that in a given playthrough with a male PC, the companions would be one sexuality, and in a playthrough with a female PC, they would be a different sexuality - one that Hawke just so happened to meet the requirements of. This did not wash for those players because they were players, not Hawke, and they knew otherwise. The devs' argument also fell apart because it was entirely possible for a single PC - of either gender - to initiate (albeit not fully complete) a romance with each companion in a single playthrough.

 

[Enrahim]

TLDR: BW Revised (edit - not to be confused with gold revised) and Gold turn out to be completely different games in scope of this thread!! BW gold is indeed a very opiniated "intent on success" and "fail forward" game, while revised (which predates gold) were more ambivalent in this regard.

I'm getting a bit fed up with the implication that I'm lying about a game that I know pretty well. But I've quoted some of the text just upthread.

No. I seriously cannot find the scene-framing rules you refer to. I checked the quotes in the reply to my and FrogReaver's post, and I can't see it there either? I am not trying to imply there is no such - I honestly cannot find them! In light of the rest of the changes, is it possible this as well was something introduced in gold (like in the rim that is not part of the free pdf?)

Have you read Vincent's Admonition on p 72?

Yes, sorry - I really intended to add that in my post, but somehow that got lost in the typing process. It is important. I will quote the relevant passage here, please tell me if you think I should edit my post. In revised edition it is page 75 and a bit easy to miss as it is not in the context of rolls. It is the first section in "The spokes in play" and the key pasage is "Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don't bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as your character wants something - needs something - that he doesn't have, that he doesn't know, that someone else ha, roll the dice." (Minor comment from my side - The context make this feel more like strong guidelines than rules though, and it doesn't really add anything in my mind beyond slightly clarifying "result is uncertain" from the hub)

Have you read p 30?

If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal—he achieved his intent and completed the task.​

​

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

I don't know what your heading "Intent and Success" is - there is no such heading on pp 30 to 32 of my copy of Gold Revised, nor in Hub and Spokes which is from Gold.

This is actually a major and substantial change between revised edition and gold! Revised reads as I quoted, and they have changed the wording after the dash. The quoted heading and the quoted text is removed - it appeared just after the instructor after the first example. The second instructor is completely rewritten. Exactly the passages I quoted is the one that is edited. I think that shows very clearly that I read the Revised edition correctly, and that there indeed has been done a conscious choice to make Gold a proper intention on success system!!

<Snipping thing that is identical in Enhanced and gold, though the context imbues the example with very different meaning>

Here is where BW states "fail forward", on p 32:

Failure Complicates the Matter​

When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . Try not to present flat negative results—“You don’t pick the lock.” Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.​

This actually also is rewritten! This section starts with "The only time we should ever hear \"Don't fail this roll or else!\" ..."The first part you quote is not present at all. The example is there and is the same, but as an example of "In less dire situations, the GM must present the players with the possible ramifications of their test". The middle paragraph is also completely rewritten containing the gist of the revised, but revised only talked about death. "varied, twisted, occult and bizarre ramifications" is not mentioned or implied at all!

If you want to play a game in which player-established priorities do not matter, and in which the GM does not frame scenes, call for rolls, and narrate consequences having regard to them, then I don't recommend Burning Wheel. I would recommend Rolemaster or HARP.

Or possibly BW Revised edition. It seem to me like that could allow for that kind of play, and I still think it looks like an absolutely excelent system. Indeed I personally after learning about these changes would much rather play BW revised than BW gold I cannot see anything I cannot do in revised that I can do in gold - but gold clearly has doubled down on being more opiniated in these key aspects.

I think even you as an experienced BW enthusiast might like to be aware of this difference, as it clearly lead to confusion like here - and actually this conscious changes to gold very much leaves no doubt what is the intention with BW Gold even more than what snippets of text from gold alone can do

I will also edit my post you quoted with clearifying that it analyse Revised, and that every key point is fundamentally changed in gold.

 

[JConstantine]

The cool thing about these games is they have explicit examples and discussion of what all these GM moves mean

One of the most common criticisms of PbtA and FitD games is that most of them very much don't do an adequate job of explaining them, and instead assume familiarity. One of the most common responses to such charges is to point people to the Dungeon World Guide, which is an external document even for Dungeon World itself, nevermind a separate game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm getting a bit fed up with the implication that I'm lying about a game that I know pretty well. But I've quoted some of the text just upthread.

Have you read Vincent's Admonition on p 72?

Have you read p 30?

If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal—he achieved his intent and completed the task.​

​

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

I don't know what your heading "Intent and Success" is - there is no such heading on pp 30 to 32 of my copy of Gold Revised, nor in Hub and Spokes which is from Gold.

Here are the examples on pp 30-1:

*“I kill him!” Rich shouts. The GM responds, “Test your Sword skill. That’s what you’re using, right? ” Rich rolls his B5 Sword skill and produces an amazing five successes. The GM consults the Weapons chapter and Anatomy of Injury chapters. “Yep, that does it. He’s a goner. Describe it for us, please!” Rich jumps from his chair, “I decapitate him like so and then stand rigid while making Bruce Lee noises.”​

​

Or: Pete announces,“I want to poison the wizard.” The GM arches his eyebrow, “How so?” Pete’s got a plan: “I’ ll sneak into the kitchen disguised as a Hound Sergeant, then I’ ll Intimidate one of his slaves to take him poisoned tea in the guise of herbal medicine.” The GM considers for a moment, “That’s pretty good. You’ ll need to make a linked test with: Disguise, Inconspicuous and Intimidation, plus Hound-wise, I think.” Pete nods and gets ready to burn some artha. If his rolls are successful, the wizard will be poisoned even though he didn’t drop the poison directly in his mouth. Why? Because Pete stated his intent, described his task and the dice came up in his favor.*​

​

. . .​

​

*“I want to humiliate him. They can’ t ignore me!” shouts Andy, enraged.​

“How?” inquires the GM.​

“I raise my voice and insult him in front of the entire party. I use my Conspicuous skill.”​

“Roll. Your obstacle is 3 to gain the attention of the crowd and be heard. Extra successes will go toward incensing them with the spectacle.”​

“Four successes.”​

“Your insults are heard flung across the room. Some eyebrows are raised. He stops walking away from you and turns, red in the face. It seems you have a moment in which you are the center of attention.”*​

​

In this example, the player states his intent and task straight away: humiliate his opponent using shouts and insults while testing his Conspicuous skill. The GM embellishes on the result with the​

successful test. The target is humiliated and the GM tells the player how​

My experience with D&D play is that killing someone requires reducing their hp to zero. The middle example is not something I've ever heard of from a D&D game. And the last one is the dreaded social mechanics.

I don't know what you mean by "fail forward". But the notion was coined by Ron Edwards and Luke Crane. It is also called "no whiffing".

Here is where BW states "fail forward", on p 32:

Failure Complicates the Matter​

When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . Try not to present flat negative results—“You don’t pick the lock.” Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.​

If you want to play a game in which player-established priorities do not matter, and in which the GM does not frame scenes, call for rolls, and narrate consequences having regard to them, then I don't recommend Burning Wheel. I would recommend Rolemaster or HARP.

The framing scenes thing is actually my personal yes/no toggle for "narrative game", and that's actually from years of reading your posts. I associate narrative games with games @pemerton likes, which I associate with "games where Pemerton talks about scene-framing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Why not? You don't think that someone who is cool under pressure is more likely to be able to judge the right time to enter, based on their observations of and intuitions about the situation?

of course they are completely able to judge when the right time for them to enter should be, however this still gives them absolutely zero influence over when anyone else, especially their opponents, will enter the situation.

My own view is that part of being a skilled burglar is making your own luck - that is, having a knack (by way of observation, familiarity with how people move through and use buildings, etc) of knowing when there is someone on the other side and when there isn't.

however the skill isn't burglary, it's lockpicking(or specifically to DnD, slight of hand:thieves tools), a skill that measures your ability to pick locks and solely your ability to pick locks(okay it does some other stuff too but that's stuff like disarming traps it's all in the same vein), not your observation skills(perception), not your information gathering skills(various INT and CHA skills), not your ability to move quietly and remain undetected(stealth) and not your luck(independent dice checks), you're assuming a bunch of extra stuff that isn't meant to be covered by the skill and backdooring them into the single check, you make your 'luck' by making those other types of checks and formulating a plan which takes advantage of or is adjusted by the information gained through them.

On your preferred approach, it seems to me that the supposedly skilled burglar is as likely as the amateur to misjudge their attempt and be caught. Which is to say, they are not skilled at all.

on my preferred approach the skilled burglar should have a higher perception to notice the cook and thus make the judgement to not even attempt the lockpicking check on the kitchen door in the first place.

 

[JConstantine]

One pet peeve of mine is that in most narratvist games character skills always seem to be imporoperly named. But really, how could they be named appropriately when they are meant to influence 2 completely different things. The probability you perform a task/get your intent and the probability you encounter some external complication.

Many GM moves as well. I thought this in one of Pemerton's examples....Put the character in a spot and hint at future badness don't seem particularly different, imo. Maybe they are--but then this goes back to the jargon critique from a while back.

I think it does work if you write explicitly that the skills are just the vibes and that things just happen to go well for characters who are just that cool or hard or whatever, in a more cinematic sense. I'm not sure how many systems do that.

One of the stark contrasts with "Moves" is that they're typically about the intended goal (i.e. what/why), whereas in a trad/sim RPG the actions are about the approach (i.e. how).