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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think what is being suggested is that, to be comfortable with the fiction and with play, there really should be a fiction of what those runes mean, before someone decides to try to read them.

My response is that you are drastically limiting the game to dealing only with things you, the GM, decide on. I don't think you all see how nearly total your domination of the content of play is. I'm just not interested as a player in being stuck in that box!

 

[Micah Sweet]

My response is that you are drastically limiting the game to dealing only with things you, the GM, decide on. I don't think you all see how nearly total your domination of the content of play is. I'm just not interested as a player in being stuck in that box!

I suggest that you are overstating your case. Many of us seem to enjoy our RPG experiences just fine. Players too, weirdly enough, seem pretty happy to limit their activities to their PCs.

That's just us, though. You do you.

 

[Enrahim]

I got another flaming torch to throw. I just realised that the current descriptions of fail forward sound awfully lot like forced railroading. As long as the players roll high, they are ensured agency in that everything go as they hope.

However, roll low, and the GM has to introduce something that changes what the entire scene is about. And this has to not match what the players was intending. The GM forcing the game to be about something else than the players were striving for sound awfully close to the definition of railroading to me? In this case it is the rules forcing the GM to do it, and it is only momentarily. But I do not know if that makes it much better?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

By the formulation, I still assume they are only allowed to answer the one question selected? That is they are still just allowed to provide information. Very well that the information might be "there is a sniper on the tower that has you locked in", but wouldn't it require another move for the sniper to actually pull the trigger?

DW is different in that it provide a general all purpose miss. This is in my understanding what allow stuff beyond information to happen on a discern realities.

I think there's no big difference here. DW DR just leaves 6- up to the GM, presumably they make a soft move that follows.

Honestly I don't think RaS even applies to something like this. It's probably just Act Under Fire, or if there's no pressure then you just succeed unless something has established the lock as unpickable or you lack lockpicks. I guess maybe there's a playbook with a more specific move? Honestly, AW's focus is more on personal interactions than spycraft. I'd generally give a well prepared character a free pass here, maybe narrating some soft move. Once they enter, then more interesting stuff can happen.

 

[AlViking]

My response is that you are drastically limiting the game to dealing only with things you, the GM, decide on. I don't think you all see how nearly total your domination of the content of play is. I'm just not interested as a player in being stuck in that box!

My response is that you're drastically overestimating how much people care what you think on this topic because we all have different preferences.

 

[Campbell]

Just stop pretending our games are exactly the same. They're not.

Someone saying the contrast you are drawing is the wrong one to draw is not the same as saying our games are the same. They are not. They are just different in ways that differ from the contrasts you are drawing.

 

[AlViking]

I got another flaming torch to throw. I just realised that the current descriptions of fail forward sound awfully lot like forced railroading. As long as the players roll high, they are ensured agency in that everything go as they hope.

However, roll low, and the GM has to introduce something that changes what the entire scene is about. And this has to not match what the players was intending. The GM forcing the game to be about something else than the players were striving for sound awfully close to the definition of railroading to me? In this case it is the rules forcing the GM to do it, and it is only momentarily. But I do not know if that makes it much better?

I don't know if forced railroading is the correct term, I do know it's a GM taking a much more proactive approach to the flow of the game in ways that I don't personally find necessary.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My response is that you are drastically limiting the game to dealing only with things you, the GM, decide on. I don't think you all see how nearly total your domination of the content of play is. I'm just not interested as a player in being stuck in that box!

many of us who are taking this stance i believe, (though i cannot be able to claim to speak for everyone,) have this opinion from the position of a player just as much as a GM, it doesn't matter what side of the table we're sitting on what matters to us is how the game is played and the fiction is handled.

 

[AlViking]

many of us who are taking this stance i believe, (though i cannot be able to claim to speak for everyone,) have this opinion from the position of a player just as much as a GM, it doesn't matter what side of the table we're sitting on what matters to us is how the game is played and the fiction is handled.

Limiting the world's fiction to the GM is a feature, not a bug. I want to explore the GM's world, I don't want to create things outside of my character when I get to play. I want to assume the identity of my character when I play, not help write the mod.

 

[zakael19]

But we've also been told that fail forward means something happens and that the door remaining locked is not adequate.

Some of us have been trying to belabor for idk somehow like 300 pages or some bs that the original example of "how do you fail forward a locked door" is incredibly bad, along with countless examples provided by many people of what that situation would actually look like across multiple rule systems that may either bake some degree of scene-evolution into all resolution mechanics, or as @Faolyn and @hawkeyefan have noted how they'd do it in D&D 5e.

And yet, we're still here. Still having this absurd example and argument going in circles.

Again, you don't have to like any part of the concept of fail-forward, but the point has been made repeatedly that doing so is a mildly conservative play style at odds with the most recent D&D guidance and many games coming out that take inspiration from current-gen D&D play culture.

To continue to argue over and over that "I dont like it because it doesnt feel right" has some deeper meaning is baffling.

Edit: oh, no that was like page 800 or so this started. 600 pages?