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

[Pedantic]

And that is the thing - when any rule system come in contact with a human GM that really know their stuff, the best it can hope to do is exactly not actively interfering.

I've never found this argument persuasive, and I don't like the camps it sets up. There's no need to cede the grounds of system to other agendas.

 

[Lanefan]

The lack of something doesn't make it a good tool for a job; at best it means its not actively interfering, since its not providing any help.

What's that line about the best weapon being the weapon you never have to fire?

 

[Faolyn]

and you've been told just as many times that others feel very different, that the end results are not the same, and how people feel about the end results are not the same.

edit: when the state of the fiction is decided before the results of the check are known the consequences will be different, when it's decided after you only have two options, 1) you succeed and the cook isn't there or 2) you fail and the cook is, when decided before there are four options: 1) you succeed with no cook, 2) you fail with no cook, 3) you succeed with a cook or 4) you fail with a cook

No, this is still wrong.

When the dice are rolled, the GM could decide that there's a cook, or no cook, whether or not the roll is a success or failure. Because as I and others have pointed out, there are many options here. The GM could decide there's a cook in the kitchen. If the roll is a success, there's a cook, but the cook is turned away and doesn't notice the PC enter. If the roll is a failure, the cook notices and screams. But that doesn't mean the cook only exists once the players enter the room! If the players look through a window or listen at the door, the GM will say that they see/hear a cook, unless there is a very good reason for them not to. And then the PCs can adjust their plans accordingly. If they go through and succeed, the cook would still not notice them, and if they fail, the cook would notice them.

(Remember, that example with the cook was from one blog post, and wasn't the best example possible.)

If the state of the fiction is decided before hand, then the GM has to hope that they've accounted for everything the players are going to do--which means there's a good chance that the GM is going to have to improv anyway. The GM may have carefully plotted out the existence and location of every single member of the household so they know who will be around when the players break in, only to have the players brazenly knock on the door, maybe in an illusory disguise. Oops. Did the GM think to flesh out everyone's personalities as well and decide how they'd react to such an event? Or the PCs could go a completely different route. I mentioned a zillion posts ago about how I was in a game that expected us to go on an interdimensional bank heist to get a certain artifact, and instead we hired a lawyer. Or the PCs could just fireball the place.

Which goes back to what I have said repeatedly. You will have to improvise (or else stop the game while you figure things out, or worse, railroad the PCs or forbid them from taking certain actions), and your game isn't worse off for the improv. And I'd bet that you wouldn't end the session thinking "that wasn't good because I didn't plan everything out ahead of time."

 

[Faolyn]

If that's the case - that the D&D system itself isn't doing any simulating and is instead getting out of the way so the DM and players can do the simulating themselves such that the players feel like they're acting in a real place - doesn't that in fact make it a very good system for simulation?

I'm pretty sure the idea is that the mechanics lend to the simulation. To paraphrase Hussar, the rules don't just say you miss in combat, they say how you miss, if you fail to connect at all because you misjudged or because the other guy dodged, or if you hit but your weapon bounces off their armor, etc.

If the DM and players are doing the simulating themselves, that's actually narrativist, because you're describing the world around you.

 

[Lanefan]

In theory you could have a module where you need the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch to defeat the Monster of Caerrbanog with it's sharp pointy teeth that go right for the jugular except that the HHGA is locked in a chest. If you're unable to pick the lock on the chest, it's game over.

Unless you can destroy the chest, unscrew the lock from the chest, take the hinges off the chest, or somehow use magic (there's many options) to open the chest and-or get the grenade out.

Or unless (if you have time) you go and find a better lock-picker.

Or unless you can find another way of dealing with the monster that doesn't require the grenade.

I don't remember ever actually experiencing it in nearly half a century of gaming where the GM gates the entire future of the game on a single check, no ifs-ands-or-buts but it could hypothetically happen. Occasionally we haven't gotten our mitts on the golden bright shiny thing, but that's not game ending.

Indeed. Mission failure is always an option.

 

[Faolyn]

If consequences like the ones you've explained happen every time there is a failed check it becomes obvious.

But that wouldn't happen every time there's a failed check. There's a boatload of possibilities. This includes possibilities like mechanical penalties or increasing difficulties to one or more upcoming rolls.

 

[Lanefan]

So, to sum up the now-legendary break into the house scenario, we have:

--- a thief or burglar about which nothing is known (species, size, degree of skill, etc.)
--- an undetermined time of day (majority vote here seems to be 2 am)
--- the thief is attempting to break into a decent-size house, known to have staff, for an as-yet-undetermined reason
--- the thief has chosen for his entry point a door that leads into a kitchen, though it's assumed other entry points exist
--- the thief may or may not be able to pick the door's lock, and may or may not be able to do so quietly
--- inside the kitchen there may or may not be a cook, who may or may not be asleep
--- if the cook is present it's known that she'll scream like hell on noticing the break-in
--- the rest of the household are nowhere to be seen
--- meanwhile lurking in the long grass in a closet* off the kitchen hides Godzilla, waiting to ambush...the cook? the thief? his wife? her lover?

Yeah, get back to me when you've resolved all that mess! Me and my beer will be over here by the fridge.........

* - which in Tardis-like fashion must be bigger on the inside, otherwise Godzilla wouldn't fit

 

[Campbell]

and you've been told just as many times that others feel very different, that the end results are not the same, and how people feel about the end results are not the same.

edit: when the state of the fiction is decided before the results of the check are known the consequences will be different, when it's decided after you only have two options, 1) you succeed and the cook isn't there or 2) you fail and the cook is, when decided before there are four options: 1) you succeed with no cook, 2) you fail with no cook, 3) you succeed with a cook or 4) you fail with a cook

It is different, but when decided after the presence of the cook is up to the GM. The complication is up to the GM. It might take a lot of time, it might damage your lock picks, you might have jimmied the lock and caused some damage, you might have alerted someone. That's even if you decide to apply fail forward. The failed roll allows the GM to frame a situation that follows - what sort of complication is up to the GM.

Fail forward is a non-deterministic mechanic. The roll constrains what the GM may frame, but it does not determine what happens.

 

[AlViking]

No, this is still wrong.

When the dice are rolled, the GM could decide that there's a cook, or no cook, whether or not the roll is a success or failure. Because as I and others have pointed out, there are many options here. The GM could decide there's a cook in the kitchen. If the roll is a success, there's a cook, but the cook is turned away and doesn't notice the PC enter. If the roll is a failure, the cook notices and screams. But that doesn't mean the cook only exists once the players enter the room! If the players look through a window or listen at the door, the GM will say that they see/hear a cook, unless there is a very good reason for them not to. And then the PCs can adjust their plans accordingly. If they go through and succeed, the cook would still not notice them, and if they fail, the cook would notice them.

(Remember, that example with the cook was from one blog post, and wasn't the best example possible.)

If the state of the fiction is decided before hand, then the GM has to hope that they've accounted for everything the players are going to do--which means there's a good chance that the GM is going to have to improv anyway. The GM may have carefully plotted out the existence and location of every single member of the household so they know who will be around when the players break in, only to have the players brazenly knock on the door, maybe in an illusory disguise. Oops. Did the GM think to flesh out everyone's personalities as well and decide how they'd react to such an event? Or the PCs could go a completely different route. I mentioned a zillion posts ago about how I was in a game that expected us to go on an interdimensional bank heist to get a certain artifact, and instead we hired a lawyer. Or the PCs could just fireball the place.

Which goes back to what I have said repeatedly. You will have to improvise (or else stop the game while you figure things out, or worse, railroad the PCs or forbid them from taking certain actions), and your game isn't worse off for the improv. And I'd bet that you wouldn't end the session thinking "that wasn't good because I didn't plan everything out ahead of time."

No, you are the one that's still getting it wrong. If we fail on the check we still get the door open, correct? But every single time something like that happens there's a complication, it makes the game less enjoyable for some people.

I don't have to think through everything the players could do. I justify have to have a basic understanding of the location and inhabitants. There are plenty of times players do stuff i hadn't anticipated, it's part of being a GM.

But that wouldn't happen every time there's a failed check. There's a boatload of possibilities. This includes possibilities like mechanical penalties or increasing difficulties to one or more upcoming rolls.

Which are still a complications caused by failure. Sometimes failure will have an impact beyond the immediate consequences. Perhaps the guards are more alert or there are more patrols. But if I'm at disadvantage on my subsequent stealth checks because I failed to pick a lock? No thanks.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It is different, but when decided after the presence of the cook is up to the GM. The complication is up to the GM. It might take a lot of time, it might damage your lock picks, you might have jimmied the lock and caused some damage, you might have alerted someone. That's even if you decide to apply fail forward. The failed roll allows the GM to frame a situation that follows - what sort of complication is up to the GM.

Fail forward is a non-deterministic mechanic. The roll constrains what the GM may frame, but it does not determine what happens.

i realize there can be other complications, i was just trying to illustrate how deciding if the cook is there independently beforehand is different to deciding if they're there based on the results of the player's check.