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

[AlViking]

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?

Stating a preference doesn't have to have a deeper meaning, it's just a preference. Why do you keep pushing back? Don't like my preference? Stop telling me about how amazing your preference is or that if I just wasn't an old stick in the mud I'd accept the glory of doing something different. Even though I wouldn't find it an improvement on my game.

 

[pemerton]

I'm saying it does so because it is fundamentally different from other processes, like declaring "I attack an orc".

The "fundamental difference" is that there is a causal process involving the player and the fiction - the resolution of the player's declared action causes everyone to agree that the runes reveal a way out - that does not tightly correlate to any causal process within the fiction - it's not true that any action of the PC's causes the runes to reveal a way out.

It's worth noting that this is not the same sort of case as unadulterated "director stance", because there is another causal process involving the player and the fiction - the resolution of the player's declared action causes everyone to agree that the PC read the runes and thereby learned (i) that they reveal a way out and (ii) what that way out is - that does tightly correlate to a causal processes within the fiction - the PC's action of reading the runes causes the PC to learn (iii) that the runes reveal a way out and (iv) what that way out is.

(I made this observation upthread in post 13249 , before posting the account of the runes in post 14072.)

The tension that between resolution like that described in my first paragraph above, and "simulationist" play priorities, has been well-known for over 20 years - see, eg, here (and was also extensively discussed on these boards around 10 to 15 years ago, in the context of 4e D&D):

Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. . . . the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda. . . .

Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.​

In the example of the runes, the resolution mechanics do not strictly adhere to in-game, pre-established cause. Rather, there is an "intrusive agenda" - first, the GM intrudes by announcing a Scene Distinction ("Strange Runes"), and then the player intrudes by establishing a hope for his PC, which feeds into the resolution of his declared action that his PC reads the runes.

Here are two examples I was thinking of this morning, that illustrate how some of the relevant contrasts can be drawn:

Some posters, like me, will remember The Warlock of Firetop Mountain and similar Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, which were also turned into a simple RPG in the 1980s. In the combat system for this game, a player - after successfully rolling their attack (Skill vs opponent's Skill) can "test their Luck*. If the Luck roll succeeds, more damage is dealt; if it fails, less damage is dealt.

This resolution system is not ideal from the simulationist perspective, for two reasons. First, there is a type of "rewinding of time" when, having already established that the attack succeeded to a degree, we now go back and find out whether it was especially lucky or unlucky. The luck itself, though, operates in a forward causal direction. This helps those with simulationist priorities tolerate the mechanic despite its rewind-y-ness. Second, there is the fact that the player has to choose to find out about their character's luck. So, while we can think of luck in this game as being an in-fiction phenomenon, the player choosing to activate it sits in tension with simulationist priorities - it is really an introduction of a further element of gambling into the game ("gamisms" is one jargon term for RPG play that emphasises this gambling element). To me, therefore, it's no surprise that really hardcore "simulationist" RPGs don't have this sort of mechanic in them.

The second example: as far as I know, it is (or was) fairly common for a GM in classic D&D play, after rolling a reaction roll, to make up some bit of backstory to explain the roll. Eg the PC is an Elf, the roll for the NPC is hostile, and the GM makes up a story about the NPC having a grudge against Elves.

This is not ideal from the simulationist perspective either, because the upshot is that there is a bit of the in-game past, that causally explains the in-game now (ie the angry reaction of the NPC to the Elf PC), but that was not factored into the roll. Rather, it was authored after the event. Thus, it's no surprise - again - that this isn't a thing in (say) Rolemaster (where the Influence/Interaction resolution table focuses on the character's performance, and not the backstory of the NPCs - the prior attitude of the NPCs is, rather, a factor in the difficulty of the roll, that has to be established before the dice are rolled). Nevertheless, there are some features of this example which make it tolerable in some otherwise broadly simulationist play: (i) it doesn't really involve an intrusion of some other priority (the GM is just trying to make sure all the fiction coheres), and (ii) it is done by the GM, not the player, and so doesn't depart from a broader principle that the GM controls the backstory by a combination of literal pre-authorship and in-play heuristics that aspire to emulate pre-authorship.

The runes example can be seen as combining features of both these two examples: player proactivity (like testing your Luck in Fighting Fantasy), and using a roll that reflects an action occurring in the in-game now to help establish something about the in-game past (like the reaction roll example), but centring the player rather than the GM.

 

[pemerton]

I didn't reply to this in my previous post, as this seem like a possible branching to a more constructive path:
What rules and principles are in place to protect against this?

In AW, as I said, "Make the player's characters lives not boring" and "Be a fan of the player's characters". In Burning Wheel, everything about the role of the GM and some of what is said about the role of the players.

 

[zakael19]

Stating a preference doesn't have to have a deeper meaning, it's just a preference. Why do you keep pushing back? Don't like my preference? Stop telling me about how amazing your preference is or that if I just wasn't an old stick in the mud I'd accept the glory of doing something different. Even though I wouldn't find it an improvement on my game.

All these posts boil down to is restating "I don't like it because..." over and over with different contrived straw arguments, willfully ignoring everything that gets posted in response to instead belabor another side point, and then consistently going "everything in newer D&D that says otherwise just proves why new D&D is bad and I'm sticking with the last one."

 

[Micah Sweet]

The "fundamental difference" is that there is a causal process involving the player and the fiction - the resolution of the player's declared action causes everyone to agree that the runes reveal a way out - that does not tightly correlate to any causal process within the fiction - it's not true that any action of the PC's causes the runes to reveal a way out.

It's worth noting that this is not the same sort of case as unadulterated "director stance", because there is another causal process involving the player and the fiction - the resolution of the player's declared action causes everyone to agree that the PC read the runes and thereby learned (i) that they reveal a way out and (ii) what that way out is - that does tightly correlate to a causal processes within the fiction - the PC's action of reading the runes causes the PC to learn (iii) that the runes reveal a way out and (iv) what that way out is.

(I made this observation upthread in post 13249 , before posting the account of the runes in post 14072.)

The tension that between resolution like that described in my first paragraph above, and "simulationist" play priorities, has been well-known for over 20 years - see, eg, here (and was also extensively discussed on these boards around 10 to 15 years ago, in the context of 4e D&D):

Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. . . . the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda. . . .​

​

Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.​

In the example of the runes, the resolution mechanics do not strictly adhere to in-game, pre-established cause. Rather, there is an "intrusive agenda" - first, the GM intrudes by announcing a Scene Distinction ("Strange Runes"), and then the player intrudes by establishing a hope for his PC, which feeds into the resolution of his declared action that his PC reads the runes.

Here are two examples I was thinking of this morning, that illustrate how some of the relevant contrasts can be drawn:

Some posters, like me, will remember The Warlock of Firetop Mountain and similar Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, which were also turned into a simple RPG in the 1980s. In the combat system for this game, a player - after successfully rolling their attack (Skill vs opponent's Skill) can "test their Luck*. If the Luck roll succeeds, more damage is dealt; if it fails, less damage is dealt.

This resolution system is not ideal from the simulationist perspective, for two reasons. First, there is a type of "rewinding of time" when, having already established that the attack succeeded to a degree, we now go back and find out whether it was especially lucky or unlucky. The luck itself, though, operates in a forward causal direction. This helps those with simulationist priorities tolerate the mechanic despite its rewind-y-ness. Second, there is the fact that the player has to choose to find out about their character's luck. So, while we can think of luck in this game as being an in-fiction phenomenon, the player choosing to activate it sits in tension with simulationist priorities - it is really an introduction of a further element of gambling into the game ("gamisms" is one jargon term for RPG play that emphasises this gambling element). To me, therefore, it's no surprise that really hardcore "simulationist" RPGs don't have this sort of mechanic in them.

The second example: as far as I know, it is (or was) fairly common for a GM in classic D&D play, after rolling a reaction roll, to make up some bit of backstory to explain the roll. Eg the PC is an Elf, the roll for the NPC is hostile, and the GM makes up a story about the NPC having a grudge against Elves.

This is not ideal from the simulationist perspective either, because the upshot is that there is a bit of the in-game past, that causally explains the in-game now (ie the angry reaction of the NPC to the Elf PC), but that was not factored into the roll. Rather, it was authored after the event. Thus, it's no surprise - again - that this isn't a thing in (say) Rolemaster (where the Influence/Interaction resolution table focuses on the character's performance, and not the backstory of the NPCs - the prior attitude of the NPCs is, rather, a factor in the difficulty of the roll, that has to be established before the dice are rolled). Nevertheless, there are some features of this example which make it tolerable in some otherwise broadly simulationist play: (i) it doesn't really involve an intrusion of some other priority (the GM is just trying to make sure all the fiction coheres), and (ii) it is done by the GM, not the player, and so doesn't depart from a broader principle that the GM controls the backstory by a combination of literal pre-authorship and in-play heuristics that aspire to emulate pre-authorship.

The runes example can be seen as combining features of both these two examples: player proactivity (like testing your Luck in Fighting Fantasy), and using a roll that reflects an action occurring in the in-game now to help establish something about the in-game past (like the reaction roll example), but centring the player rather than the GM.

That is an excellent explanation of why we (or at least I) don't like it. Well done!

 

[Micah Sweet]

All these posts boil down to is restating "I don't like it because..." over and over with different contrived straw arguments, willfully ignoring everything that gets posted in response to instead belabor another side point, and then consistently going "everything in newer D&D that says otherwise just proves why new D&D is bad and I'm sticking with the last one."

Bad for us (to my understanding, and certainly for me), in at least those respects. I don't see why this is a problem for anyone.

 

[zakael19]

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?

If you roll low, you fail to gain your objective/intent/etc. You lose. Your loss means something new needs to happen. To leave the fiction the same as it was means you don't lose, which undermines the seriousness of the stakes at hand. Why would I cheapen what the player wants? Clearly it was important to them, or they wouldn't be risking things, and we'd all just be doing vigorous creative agreement.

 

[zakael19]

Bad for us (to my understanding, and certainly for me), in at least those respects. I don't see why this is a problem for anyone.

Because it's exhausting to have conservative D&D players show up to all sorts of places across the internet going "I hate X new thing, old D&D is better" over and over. Literally what the OP was about.

The most egregious stuff is more the "I think Session 0 guidance is horrible and dumb" tbh and similar stuff that showed up again in the first few pages and I see across the internet from people I would simply never want to game with.

 

[pemerton]

There's a difference between a farrier and the runes, though. With the farrier, they're part of normal life in a typical settlement. It's just that the GM didn't think to, or forgot to, include one when they prepped the village (assuming the village wasn't improvised to begin with). The farrier also isn't likely to be all that important in the long run--at least not without serious player investment to make them so. Also, because they're an NPC, they're effectively under GM control. I don't know the specifics of the systems here, but I'm pretty sure the players can't say "I want to find a farrier who will do all the work for free" because the GM controls that aspect of the farrier and there's nothing in the established fiction that suggests that this farrier would work for free.

Runes, however, are something that the GM deliberately placed there. By letting the players "hope" that they mean something specific, then rolling to see if that hope is true, it becomes "I want the runes to be whatever I want them to be." And yes, the players shouldn't play on godmode and they should be sticking to the established fiction, but even still, this seems to inherently be playing on godmode outside the established fiction.

Now, I could see this if this were a GMless game, where either an oracle/random tables/whatever created the runes or one player made them and another player describes them. For a game like that, this would make sense. But is the game you're talking about GMless?

MHRP is not GM-less.

It is just a game - like many other RPGs conceived of since 1975 - that does not confine the determination of setting/backstory to GM decision-making.

And yes, the farrier is low stakes. I've posted exactly that upthread, multiple times. It's a deliberate feature of some RPGs to extend the role of the players in helping to shape setting/backstory into more high-stakes contexts.

Here's another example that I already posted upthread, but apparently everyone missed it:

The PCs were deliberately conceived so as to be suitable either for a Japanese or a Viking setting; when we played yesterday the players all voted for vikings, and so that's the way it went.

The 5 PCs (only 4 of whom saw play) were:

* A swordthane (or ronin in the Japanese version) who is DISCIPLINED (a version of the elf background power set) and WELL-EQUIPPED (a version of the fighter class power set, plus a Hercules-style SFX allowing a power-up of Riding or Combat assets);

* A berserker who is BORN TO FIGHT (a version of the human background power set) and goes into a BERSERK FURY (a version of the barbarian class power set);

* A lone scout who is a werewolf (or a fox spirit, in the Japanese version) who is a SKINCHANGER (bits and pieces from lizardfolk and druids) and READY FOR ANYTHING (bits and pieces from the rogue, I think the ranger as well, and the Punisher in the Civil War book for MHRP);

* A troll (or korobokuru in the Japanese version) who is of THE ESSENCE OF THE EARTH (dwarf background power set) and is a SHAPER OF THINGS (two powers - Earth Control and Melee Weapon - plus appropriate SFX like rune-carver and the like);

* A seer (who ended up not being played, as no one chose it) who is NOT FULLY OF THIS WORLD (based on the otherworld background power set) and who suffers from SHAMANIC VISIONS (I made this one up myself).​

<snip>

After people chose their characters, and we voted on vikings over Japan, the next step was to work out some background. The PCs already had Distinctions and Milestones (that I'd written up, picking, choosing and revising from the Guide and various MHRP datafiles) but we needed some overall logic: and the swordthane needed a quest (one of his milestones) and the troll a puzzle (one of his milestones).

So it turned out like this: the Berserker (who has Religious Expert d8) had noticed an omen of trouble among the gods - strange patterns in the Northern Lights; and similar bad portents from the spirit world had led the normally solitary scout (Solitary Traveller distinction, and also Animal Spirit) to travel to the village to find companions; and the troll, a Dweller in the Mountain Roots, had also come to the surface to seek counsel and assistance in relation to the matter of the Dragon's Curse; and, realising a need for a mission, the village chieftain chose the noblest and most honourable swordthane of the village - the PC, naturally - to lead it.

And so the unlikely party of companions set out.

I'm not sure what the "official" practice is, but I tend to treat these briefing/start-up contexts as Transition Scenes, and so allow any player who wants to spend the initial Plot Point on a resource to do so. So the berserker started with a d6 Token of the Gods, while the swordthane spent a PP and added a d6 to the Doom Pool to have a d8 Steed derived from his Riding Expert.

Thus equipped, the group travelled to the north, gradually climbing through the foothills ever higher towards the snow-capped peaks. In spring and summer the more adventurous herders might be found here running their animals upon the pasture, but in the autumn there were no humans about.

Cresting a ridge and looking down into the valley below, they can see - at the base of the rise on the opposite side - a large steading. Very large indeed, as they approach it, with 15' walls, doors 10' high and 8' wide, etc. And with a terrible smell. (Scene distinctions: Large Steading, Reeks of Smoke and Worse.) After some discussion of whether or not giants are friends or foes, the swordthane decides to knock at the gates and seek permission to enter. Some dice rolls later and he has a d6 Invitation to Enter asset, and a giant (I used the Guide's Ogre datafile) opens the gate and invites him in.

Meanwhile (I can't quite remember the action order) the scout has climbed up onto the top of the palisade, gaining an Overview of the Steading asset, and the troll has remembered tales of Loge the giant chieftain, gaining a Knowledge of Loge asset. And the berserker - who has the Deeds, Not Words milestone which grants 1 XP when he acts on impulse - charged through the open gate at the giant, inflicting d12 physical stress.

But the swordthane - who was hoping to learn more about his quest - used his Defender SFX to take the physical stress onto himself (in the fiction, stepping between giant and berserker and grabbing hold of the latter's axe mid-chop). And the berserker - whose player was happily taking 3 XP for being rebuked by an ally for his violence - calmed down.

The next action cycle took place in the main hall of the steading, into which the PCs were led by the giant at the gate. I drew heavily on the G1 thematic here - all but one of the players was familiar with it. And I got to add in my third scene distinction - Great Wolves under the trestle tables and gnawing on bones at the sides of the hall.

I'm not going to remember all the details of this one, but highlights included: the swordthane opening up negotations with Loge, the giant chief, including - in response to a demand for tribute - offering up the steed as a gift; the scout, after successfully parlaying his Overview of the Steading asset into a Giant Ox in the Barn asset, leading the ox into the hall and trying to trade it for the return of the horse, and failing (despite the giant chief's Slow distinction counting as a d4), and subsequently avoiding being eaten (a stepped-up Put in Mouth complication, as per the Giant datafile in the Guide) only by wedging the giant's mouth open with his knife (a heavily PP-pumped reaction roll); and the swordthane successfully opening a d6 Social resource (based on his Social Expertise) in the form of a giant shaman in the hall, who agreed that the troubles plaguing the human lands were afflicting the giants too, and so they should help one another.

In the end, the PCs succeeded in stepping up their Persuaded to Help complication on Loge above d12, and so he relented and decided to befriend them rather than try and eat them.

And here is what I posted about this example upthread (using the jargon term "diegetic", because I was commenting on the New Simulationism Manifesto, which uses that term):

Here's an example of play - using a fantasy variant of Marvel Heroic RP - that I would assume is meant to be ruled out by Sorensen's manifesto

<snip>

I don't know if the initial PP expenditures to get resources (the token and the steed) count as non-diegetic? Or are better scene as analogous to starting equipment in D&D (or is that also non-diegetic)?

I assume, though, that while the Invitation to Enter would be considered diegetic - the result of talking to the giant at the gate - and the Overview of the Steading would also be diegetic - the result of climbing the palisade - the Giant Ox would not be, as there were no notes indicating anything about what the giants might have in their barn: this was all being made up by me, and by the players, as we went along. Likewise for the giant shaman.

But explaining the difference in (in my view) non-trivial. There is a declared action - I look around the steading (for something I might take, such as an ox) or I look around the giants assembled in the hall (for someone who might agree with me, like a shaman). That is resolved. Resolving requires giving an answer yes or no. On this occasion there are no notes for the answer to come from. The fictional situation doesn't mandate one or the other answer: perhaps all the oxen are out in the fields, but it seems possible there might be one in the barn; perhaps all the giants agree with Loge and have nothing independent to add, but it seems possible that there might be a shaman or similar who shares the PCs' concerns about the portents.

I, as GM, could roll on my handy Giants Steading Inhabitants table. Or the players can make their rolls against the Doom Pool. Different processes, obviously. But I don't see how the character of the fiction would be diegetic in one case but not in the other. Yet, as I said, I'm confident that the manifesto is supposed to rule out the sort of methods that were used in this example of play.

One thing that is interesting about this is that finding an ox in the barn of a steading, or finding a shaman in the hall of a chieftain, is like finding a farrier in a village: typical.

But unlike the farrier example, those were a bit more high-stakes, and the finding of the shaman in particular helped resolve things in the PC's favour. And they were resolved via player-initiated resolution processes, not by the GM making a decision at the request of the player. So I would assume that you, @The Firebird and @AlViking would find this objectionable notwithstanding the resemblance to the farrier example.

 

[pemerton]

That is an excellent explanation of why we (or at least I) don't like it. Well done!

Thank you.