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

[Enrahim]

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.

Let me try something new. In the games where these fail forward techniques are properly implemented (which exclude all variants of D&D with siblings), the "skills" do not represent the character's innate ability to do things.

Rather it is a narrative marker that indicate how valuable the skill should be perceived in the fiction. For instance for high skill it say "in scenes where my character does this thing, I want things to go smoothly according to plan, highlighting how awesome it is that my character can do these stuff" while low skill indicate "in scenes where my character does this kind of stuff I want dramatic complications to happen, diminishing the perceived value of that skill". With this mindset anything that happens in a scene where this action is happening is directly connected to the action and the "skill".

This is a dramatically different mindset from D&D mindset, but it is a mindset that works very well for producing a different kind of enjoyable experience.

(For those having played extensively these kind of games, correct me if I am way off base. I am mostly basing this on second hand accounts, and those have not been as sharp in their descriptions as this one)

 

[JConstantine]

I think the pushback on roll-under has multiple factors. We generally think that higher numbers are better. Obviously they aren't if you're talking about cholesterol, but for most of our daily interactions and especially with games high is good.

Agreed. I would say the higher = better sentiment tends to be intuitive, with notable exceptions like ranking or balancing.

Maybe you never played TSR era D&D where sometimes high was good sometimes low was good but for quite a few people it was a bit counterintuitive that rolling low was what you wanted. Then of course we get into things like THAC0 which was even more unintuitive for some.

I've played a small amount AD&D2e, and some OSR/NuSR, but not OD&D. I hated THAC0. Some things being good when high and others when being low would probably annoy me. I prefer unified resolution systems.

 

[JConstantine]

Then you can count me in that number as well, although it depends on the check. Previous versions had this a bit more spelled out that for example if you're doing a check to see what you know about a specific monster they gave ranges. The higher the number the more you would know about the creature.

The 2024 DMG talks about degrees of failure and success, it's something I use for knowledge checks on a somewhat regular basis and other checks if it makes sense.

Yeah, this is something I've done for knowledge checks and the like, myself.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I've always found it weird that metacurrencies are considered a narrative mechanic. Their meta-narrative nature always distinguished them as somewhat gamist to me.

i would guess that, to my knowledge of them, it's because they're often used to (at the very least attempt to) manipulate or bypass the usual gameplay mechanics to achieve a desired outcome and get the story going in the direction you want it to as a result,

 

[Faolyn]

I've always found it weird that metacurrencies are considered a narrative mechanic. Their meta-narrative nature always distinguished them as somewhat gamist to me.

That's the problem with GNS. You can't divide RPGs into simply three categories; they're far too complex that that.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Because PbtA games are about the PCs, not about NPCs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Nope!

 

[Pedantic]

Let me try something new. In the games where these fail forward techniques are properly implemented (which exclude all variants of D&D with siblings), the "skills" do not represent the character's innate ability to do things.

Rather it is a narrative marker that indicate how valuable the skill should be perceived in the fiction. For instance for high skill it say "in scenes where my character does this thing, I want things to go smoothly according to plan, highlighting how awesome it is that my character can do these stuff" while low skill indicate "in scenes where my character does this kind of stuff I want dramatic complications to happen, diminishing the perceived value of that skill". With this mindset anything that happens in a scene where this action is happening is directly connected to the action and the "skill".

This is a dramatically different mindset from D&D mindset, but it is a mindset that works very well for producing a different kind of enjoyable experience.

(For those having played extensively these kind of games, correct me if I am way off base. I am mostly basing this on second hand accounts, and those have not been as sharp in their descriptions as this one)

This is the same line I tried earlier, suggesting it was incorrect to present modifiers that would be used this way as representative of "skill." That didn't seem to go down well, but maybe you'll sell it better.
D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

 

[JConstantine]

The games I run tend to be more aligned towards the premise of the characters, but I'd say most of the games I play in tend to fit a more hybrid model where some situations come through world building, some through plot and some through character premise.

What matters here is the GM's process which is somewhat related to system (in that system defines the GM's role) but obviously we play Vampire and other games more character premise forward than most folks.

Right. In my V:TM sandbox, I insist that players come up with goals and ambitions for their characters and expect them to pursue them. Sure, I've got 100 or so NPCs pre-created with their own desires that may or may not conflict or align with those of the PCs, and so the players may or may not interact with those NPCs, but the goals of the PCs are the ones I'm interested in seeing succeed or fail. Similarly, the world may push back against the PCs based on their actions, but I sure as hell don't give the setting primacy and there's no focus on exploration. It's pretty similar to how BitD plays, albeit with different resolution system.

Similar to you, my play tends to be somewhat of a hybrid, so maybe I'm projecting on others, but I can see why they might balk at idea that the setting is held as most important.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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!)

Well, let’s just look at the cook example. Trad folks are advocating for the character’s action to have no effect. Nothing happens.

Folks advocating for fail forward or similar methods are advocating for the player’s action to have something happen.

Something seems easily recognizable as more than nothing.

There’s probably room for elaboration, but that’s likely the most basic and obvious take.