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

[Enrahim]

But it's precisely a dead end caused by failing to clear a mechanical hurdle that is the thing I'm talking about.

Talking through a dead end purely within fiction is perfectly acceptable. Good, even--in moderation. I've made very clear here that it's about invoking mechanics where mechanics have no place. Pretty sure I've said some variation of the phrase "why would you invoke mechanics for this" half a dozen times already.

What I'm getting at here is that dead-ends which
(a) only occur because the characters failed to clear a mechanical hurdle
(b) add genuinely nothing to the experience other than "you spent maybe a minute and nothing happened, what now?" and
(c) do nothing to advance toward any kind of (local) conclusion

are something that should be avoided.

If it happens without invoking mechanics, sure, fine, whatever, knock yourself out. That's part of the conversation of play, and that conversation can have all sorts of things in it. Or, if it happens and invokes mechanics, but the result does in fact add something, anything other than "you wasted a little time, now what?", awesome, have at it--whatever was added is, necessarily, new information, or a new avenue of approach, or something which helps keep the game going. Or, if it happens, invokes mechanics, and doesn't add anything, but does inherently push the situation toward some kind of (local) conclusion, any kind of local conclusion, good, bad, weird, whatever, awesome, more power to ya.

But if all that's happening is the PCs are wasting their time and the players are wasting theirs, why on earth are we invoking mechanics for this? Just keep it in the fiction.

Ok, in that case I think what you are arguing against is something that almost never happens in actual play - independent of technique or system used It might be an ok heads-up for novice GMs that has gotten some weird ideas about how the rules are supposed to be applied without question; but novice GMs seem to be an unfortunately rare breed these days :/

 

[FrogReaver]

The rules don't require wizard players to narrate that, just as they don't require any player to narrate their character going to the toilet. But I picture characters do need to go to the toilet.

I prefer not to I mean is Orc poo green? Gnome poo pink? Does tiefling poo smell like fire and sulpher?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, in that case I think what you are arguing against is something that almost never happens in actual play - independent of technique or system used It might be an ok heads-up for novice GMs that has gotten some weird ideas about how the rules are supposed to be applied without question; but novice GMs seem to be an unfortunately rare breed these days :/

I mean it seemed pretty clear to me that that was precisely what Lanefan was previously arguing for, using the locked door as an example.

The party fails to pick the lock. Nothing happens. A few minutes were wasted trying to pick that lock. The house is dark and quiet. Nothing happens, no meaningful amount of time was spent, no danger, no development, no new leads, no alternative paths--nothing. Just...you failed. What now?

Here's where that was said.

There's a pretty big difference between:

DM: "You try your best but can't get the lock open. All still seems quiet. What do you do?"

and

DM: "You try your best but can't get the lock open. Oh, and there's someone behind the door just started screaming her head off, something about 'Intruder!', and lights are coming on within the house. What do you do?"

You're quite right that the cook will very likely be mobile and not always in one place; which opens up the possibility that even if the thief fails his attempt to get in, she's not there to notice. Or, she's there but is either asleep or so engaged in what she's doing that she doesn't clue in that someone's trying to break into the kitchen. Or, she's not the only one with keys; maybe other staff members come and go through that door meaning someone unlocking the door is a common thing (and maybe the thief knows this, which is why he's chosen that door as his entry point in the first place). All of these would lead to my first DM narration, above.

And if he instead succeeds and does get in (i.e. rolls a success on the lock attempt) without attracting anyone's attention, if the cook is there their potentially noticing each other is a separate resolution, followed by resolving any interaction(s) they may have. One step at a time.

As you can see, he characterizes his own position (in contrast to the one imputed upon others) as genuinely nothing except, "You try your best but can't get the lock open. All seems quiet. What do you do?" If that isn't precisely what I described above, I don't know what would be that thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In which light, it makes sense that you dislike it.

Okay. So...what is it which builds that "pregnant with possibility" thing out of--as just quoted above--"you failed, it took a few minutes, nothing happened, everything is quiet, what do you do?" situation?

Because that example was pretty pointedly not pregnant with possibility. It was...failure. With nothing else. At all.

 

[thefutilist]

No, not as an outcome of the move. But as a narration on what happens when the thief immediately (and possibly implicitly) opens the door afterwards?

Do anyone have a problem with the player asking if something is there, the GM calls a perception check, we get a nat 20 and the GM informs "nope, nothing there that you can see" (Being aware of the assassins' superior hide check rolled in advance)?

Yes, and I could then have told you that in preparation for this heist scenario you hinted at they would be doing the last session, I mapped out the location and activity of each household member hour by hour. That the information about the typical bread delivery timing would have been readily available if you had decided to pay the local bakery a visit as part of staking out the target. And that indeed I had had in the back of my head how cool it would have been if you had been posing as the bread deliverer as a possible means of getting inside.

This is why it's worth asking, why use resolution mechanics in the first place. What are they for? what's the fun of the game? The resolution mechanics fit within a broader framework, how does it all hang together?


Take Apocalypse World and the cook. Now AW can be interpreted a few different ways but I'll give you my interpretation.


Say we've established that there is a water purifier gadget owned by the Flyswat gang. They'll trade it to us but they want a lot of gasoline, far more than we want to give. So one us (Midnight) goes and decides to just steal the purifier gadget.

That's two moral choices right there. So then we use the system to see what happens next. Midnight is going to sneak in and that means an act under fire roll. the fire is she'll be discovered.


So we have three outcomes: The MC has a few choices on a partial, the one I might do is below


Hit: She gets' the gadget and isn't discovered.

Partial: A cook discovers her but there is still a chance to remain hidden

Failure: A guard discovers her and alerts the whole compound.


On a hit all is well good. On a partial, the cook discovers her and I give her an ugly choice, the cook is surprised as she is but Midnight is quicker. She can slit his throat before he screams. We're now asking a few different moral questions. Is the purifier worth killing over is a big one.

On a miss: She'll have to gauge whether she can fight her way through to the purifier at all. If she can then she's got the same moral choice, she'll be having to kill a load of people.

Now the MC could actually just contrive some Sophie's choice type stuff and throw it at the player. Gating it behind the roll does a few things. One is shows the worth of the particular approach, how well did stealth work out. In the broader context of the game it allows us all to be a bit more surprised because the story will be wilder than the GM just presenting A or B pathways.

There's also an argument that this type of Sophie's choice scenario is still a bit too contrived. In fact if you look at the edition changes between 1E and Burned Over (3E), 3E constrains the hard choices a bit more on the partials. Where as this example is ripped straight from the 1E book (it's a ganger and not a cook but the same scenario)

Contrast with your choices about the Bakery delivery. Those seem to be strategic choices, there are better and worse options relative to the goal. You can just screw up by not being smart enough (playing well enough).

 

[Enrahim]

I mean it seemed pretty clear to me that that was precisely what Lanefan was previously arguing for, using the locked door as an example.

The party fails to pick the lock. Nothing happens. A few minutes were wasted trying to pick that lock. The house is dark and quiet. Nothing happens, no meaningful amount of time was spent, no danger, no development, no new leads, no alternative paths--nothing. Just...you failed. What now?

Here's where that was said.

As you can see, he characterizes his own position (in contrast to the one imputed upon others) as genuinely nothing except, "You try your best but can't get the lock open. All seems quiet. What do you do?" If that isn't precisely what I described above, I don't know what would be that thing.

In @Lanefan 's example I am pretty sure that it is established that picking the lock is now established to not work; that is that Lanefan applies the no-retry rule, and find it so obvious it doesn't need mentioning.

A second thing that could have happened and that is very common in this kind of play is that behind the scenes a random event check was done. This would also be something beyond "nothing happen, just unimportant time passing", even if this is not visible in the fiction.

A third thing that could be happening is that there is a hidden clock ticking down. (Edit Side note - I actually think this is what the classic 6 turns between each random encounter check is in practice)

A fourth thing that could be happening is that the GM subtly changes their tone of voice, reflecting the situation becoming more foreboding or urgent (And take that into account in future crossroads).

Your criteria is very narrow. And the techniques for avoiding the problem you describe pose is so worked in and well known that they generally are not considered worth mentioning. It is just assumed that you use some flavor of them, exactly which is not so important.

 

[clearstream]

Okay. So...what is it which builds that "pregnant with possibility" thing out of--as just quoted above--"you failed, it took a few minutes, nothing happened, everything is quiet, what do you do?" situation?

Because that example was pretty pointedly not pregnant with possibility. It was...failure. With nothing else. At all.

If I recall correctly the case at hand is searching for a secret door. Is this our opening situation or has play occurred leading up to this?

 

[AlViking]

It doesn't even need to be a sustained period - given how short 5e levels 1 and 2 can be in terms of encounters it's very straightforward for them to be obtained over a day or two for which we can account for all of the Wizards time. The point is that there are no rules as to what actions a wizard needs to declare in order to get their spells. And considering how time compressed 5e campaigns can be it seems a bit unfair to single out Wizards by claiming they need an (unspecified) amount of free time to obtain their class features.

The game also doesn't give detailed instructions on cooking food, setting up camp, care for the horses, care for their gear? Where's the rust factor for armor if you don't properly maintain it? Abstraction is part of every game. You will always be able to find something that the game doesn't explain because no game can give you exact details.

It doesn't matter to the people playing the game, why doe it matter to you? If it matters to you and you want to play the game, work with your GM and come up with something. Because I've learned a lot of skills over the years, kind of goes with the territory of staying current with software development. Sometimes you do get that aha moment, frequently after you've been futzing around with something for quite a while. D&D accelerates that in a lot of games - it's why I typically try to have months or more of downtime before people level up - but it's just an abstraction. Just like I don't worry too much about how adventurers maintain proper dental hygiene.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In @Lanefan 's example I am pretty sure that it is established that picking the lock is now established to not work; that is that Lanefan applies the no-retry rule, and find it so obvious it doesn't need mentioning.

Sure. I had presumed that.

A second thing that could have happened and that is very common in this kind of play is that behind the scenes a random event check was done. This would also be something beyond "nothing happen, just unimportant time passing", even if this is not visible in the fiction.

I don't really buy that the time--what, a minute? two minutes?--taken to pick a lock is relevant for this. I'm also, as usual, very, VERY skeptical of all these things that are kept completely mum from the players.

A third thing that could be happening is that there is a hidden clock ticking down. (Edit Side note - I actually think this is what the classic 6 turns between each random encounter check is in practice)

I don't see how this is any different from the previous point. It's just saying the same thing in a different way. Whether you roll the encounter now or "6 turns from now" is not a difference of method.

A fourth thing that could be happening is that the GM subtly changes their tone of voice, reflecting the situation becoming more foreboding or urgent (And take that into account in future crossroads).

But it explicitly isn't becoming more urgent. That's....literally part of the problem is that we've been specifically told it is NOT becoming more urgent. Nothing happens.

Your criteria is very narrow. And the techniques for avoiding the problem you describe pose is so worked in and well known that they generally are not considered worth mentioning. It is just assumed that you use some flavor of them, exactly which is not so important.

I mean when I am specifically calling this out as a problem, I should think it would need mentioning! But beyond that, I don't really accept much of what you have provided here. The lock being established as unpickable is (part of) the problem, I just flat-out do not see 1-2 minutes as making sense for a "random event check" situation, I don't see how "hidden clock ticking down" is any different from that previous thing, and all this "subtly changes their tone of voice" is specifically contradicting the idea that, again, as specifically stated many times over, nothing happens.

Further, all of these things go right back into what I've been saying all along: that what is actually happening is the GM orchestrating an experience, not simply dispassionately portraying a world as that world itself is. Your "fourth" point (recognizing that I think you've only really stated two points here, namely "encounters might occur because of time taken" and this point) is particularly problematic, because it is very literally all about establishing an emotional response, a feeling, a tone--which are all drama concerns, not simulation ones.

So, what do we do if--again, building off what Lanefan himself has said!--no meaningful time has been expended? That seems to leave us with "the GM narrates the scene in a way that has the sound of greater drama". That's...really not much of anything at all, because no events have occurred, and the players already know that they still need to get into the house! Seems to me that if we're caring about drama, it's better served by actually having something happen, so long as that happening is reasonably linked to what we know to be true. Hence why I use examples like, because Lilia has been fiddling with the lock for five minutes trying to get it open, that is why she's now in a tight spot because the chef is about to exist the door (or whatever else)--it is in fact her failure to pick which has put her in that compromised position.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If I recall correctly the case at hand is searching for a secret door. Is this our opening situation or has play occurred leading up to this?

The example I was speaking of was a Thief needing to get into a house, picking a locked door, and failing. If you wish to talk about that other example, I would probably need to know more, as "play literally just started, you looked for secret doors and found nothing" seems grossly unfair against the pro-"traditional GM"/sim-focused folks; that reads to me like an incompetent or even malicious GM, and I don't want to presume that.