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

[Campbell]

So, in games were intent is meaningful, I expect two things. That the intention is the character's diegetic intent and not the player's hope for the scene and that intention is credible. If that is not the case, I will simply say it's not the case and ask the player to establish the equivalent of task and intent that fits within those criteria.

Part and parcel of this sort of play is that the game's credibility is also on the players, but it should be anyway. Like in a traditional game when we are establishing things like backgrounds my expectation is that players are interested in the integrity of the setting and creating a compelling play experience. My expectation is the same during play - that players are playing their characters with integrity and not weaseling for advantages that are not diegetic.

There's a reason why don't be a weasel is one Blades' player best practices. Honestly, this is something we really should not have to say but really said in some way as a bit of a reminder in most games.

 

[JConstantine]

Sure, just like it’s sound advice for Fail Forward to inflict unconnected consequences… yet people are still citing that criticism.

I do agree with this sentiment. I have no strong opinions on its value, but fail forward is just a technique and it can be misused or misapplied like any other.

 

[Campbell]

I think one of the strange things is that sometimes metacurrencies are just currencies. There is nothing meta about Willpower in World of Darkness or Strings in Monsterhearts. They're just abstractions of diegetic phenomenon.

 

[AlViking]

No, you've seen plenty of clarifications on fail forward in this thread. Or at least, I would have expected you to... many were in response to your posts.

A big correction that has been made is that the consequences are not unrelated to the task attempted.

And the example you provide here... of fail a climb check and knock some rocks off the cliff and alert some monsters to your presence... that is not "unrelated". They are intrinsically connected.



Sure, it's a game! You're the one complaining about abstractions made on a player roll.

No, I don't like a consequence of an action that has consequences not directly tied to the action taken. In your climb check you decided that the character would succeed on the climb the only thing the check indicated was how much time it would take.

Nothing new here.

 

[JConstantine]

No he didn't. But very few posters in this thread, or on ENW, follow Tuovinen'sa (or Edward's) usage when they talk about "simulationism".

Well, quite. That should probably tell you something. Even @Hussar, who doesn't align with those self-identified simulationists, defines it in a way that's contrary to Edwards and Tuovinen.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, I don't like a consequence of an action that has consequences not directly tied to the action taken. In your climb check you decided that the character would succeed on the climb the only thing the check indicated was how much time it would take.

Nothing new here.

Yes, you continue to fail to understand how these things are directly related. Nothing new at all!

 

[Enrahim]

I read it again. Here's what you said:


Take a look at the bolded. Note that the italics on the word "characters" was yours. That's what I was responding to. However, you can feel free to also apply what I said to the idea that the actions of the characters are less substantive. Either way, I find the criticism to be incredibly far from my experience.

Ouch me bad, sorry! My laziness got the better of me in that second instance. It was supposed to read the action of the characters there as well. Then I feel sufficiently understood, and have nothing to add other than that I am a bit curious if you could manage to articulate a key thing this reasoning appear to be missing that make it deviate from your experience? (But no pressure, I fully take you on your word here!)

I don't care what subforum it's in. The topic of the conversation is such that looking beyond D&D and its established practices should be expected and encouraged.

I agree that plenty of discussion has been about applying new techniques to D&D play. I think that some of the pitfalls of doing so are being overstated. Yes, they may be things to be aware of, and we can discuss them as potential pitfalls... but they are often being portrayed as certain pitfalls.

Yes I at least can fully agree that the tone has at times been harsher than what I think might be warranted

Well, if no one is asking about the method, then where's the issue with introducing the cook on the failed roll? If no one asks why she's there, wouldn't they just assume it was part of the map and key?

Yes, as I have said, I think it works out just fine in isolated incidents. But a) I would like to be able to give an honest answer that is not disapointing anyone if they ever ask, and b) if extensively using this technique, I am pretty certain it will be recognised eventually. (Edit: by "this technique" I am not talking about Fail forward in general but rather the caricatured version where the complications are almost fully unhinged from the narrated action)

Having said that, I absolutely will discuss this kind of thing during play. I am happy to discuss the process by which I GM. And I will point things out from time to time just so my players, most of whom have been playing with me for decades, are still aware of what I'm doing and why.

As for a solid and persistent world... I find that it's the reasoning that the GM makes for such things that leads to a solid and persistent world, not how in advance of play those decisions are made.

I think there are a lot of different ways of doing it. Actually doing extensive prep at least seem like a technique that could be helpful. But I have tried both, and actually think for me a the best approach has been to mostly prepare the big picture, be very conscious about established fiction, and limit the constraints these put on my improvisation. Again nothing I would be ashamed to bring up in middle of play, it just doesn't naturally come up. I guess in the games you play there are a bit more meta channel communication going on during play than in my D&D campaigns though? That would explain how you would find it more natural to talk trough your processes during play.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, I didn't GM Monster of the Week, and the GM was a good illusionist. Most of my issues with that game involved the whole "special, unique PC" thing and the cute names for all the PC abilities, both exemplified by the Playbook.

...It's a modern day supernatural game where you play monster hunters. Of course you're special and unique. Otherwise it would be modern day fantasy where monsters are out in the open, like in D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But why would I take an action that violated the game I was running?

Don't you think it's more likely that I'm running the game such that fail forward is a valid option for the GM to use, that the participants know this, and therefore when it's used, it's not a violation of anything?

Shouldn't we judge the game being played by the means with which it's being played?



But it is a character action. It's not the player influencing play without their character being involved.

Do you think deciding to read something should in itself determine what that something means?

 

[Micah Sweet]

...It's a modern day supernatural game where you play monster hunters. Of course you're special and unique. Otherwise it would be modern day fantasy where monsters are out in the open, like in D&D.

Then why are PCs special and unique in all the other PbtA games?