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

[pemerton]

Sure. Just as X decides what the prize is (the runes will be beneficial) is not the same as X drew the winning lot.

I didn't mention lotteries as an example of stake-setting. Though they are, in the sense that by choosing to enter a lottery I choose to put something at stake.

My point is simply that rolling the dice to see if you get what you stake is not deciding that you get what you stake, any more than drawing lots to see who gets whatever it is that has been put at stake is not the same as deciding to get what you stake.

Do you disagree? Do you think that winning <whatever> in the drawing of lots is the same as deciding to have <whatever>?

 

[pemerton]

You might want to have a chat with @Campbell and @AbdulAlhazred ref the posts quoted in

They both liked this attempt at summarising their positions. I am just the messager.

I'm not asking @Campbell or @AbdulAlhazred about the play experiences. I'm pretty sure that AbdulAlhazred has never played MHRP or other Cortex+ RPGs. I believe that @Campbell has, but I don't know what approach he has taken to backstory authority.

But you asserted that the player's hope should not enter into the roll. And I'm asking, what is your basis for this claim as far as MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic is concerned?

 

[AlViking]

The problem isn’t that you have other preferences. That’s perfectly fine.

The problem isn’t that you talk about your preferences. That’s also perfectly fine.

The problem is when you talk about things you say you don’t like. Fail forward, narrativist games, and so on. Because when you do that, you continue to describe them poorly. It’s fine if you say “fail forward is not for me”. No one is trying to force you to use it.

But when you say “I don’t like fail forward because I don’t like the GM inflicting unconnected consequences on a failed roll”? That’s when you get pushback. Because you keep getting things wrong.

And here’s the other thing… I don’t think anyone has actually said “the games we like are better” or anything like that. Additionally… several posters actively play and/or run both trad and narrativist games. I am one of them. I wouldn’t classify one above the other… I enjoy each for different reasons.

If you don’t want people to disagree with you, then maybe stop trying to describe games that you don’t really understand. Seems pretty simple to me.

So now the issue is that I express an opinion? That I don't want the GM doing things simply to move the game forward? It's because I can't describe it in exactly the terms you use when we ask for examples but then on the rare cases we get examples we explain why they don't fit what others are saying or explain why that example wouldn't work for us?

Take the examples you gave - climbing a cliff took longer. That's not what others have described and, in my opinion that was just "this is guaranteed to succeed, let's see how long it takes". That's perfectly fine - the length of time to climb a cliff is directly related to your ability to climb. But other examples? Well we have the example of the player choosing the preferred outcome if they succeed on a check, which came true because they succeeded on a check. Which of course doesn't mean that the player decided what the runes would say. Obviously. In other cases, failure to pick a lock didn't end up with a screaming cook because that would be silly! But a guard showing up, a neighbor noticing you, a cat you hadn't noticed? Those are perfectly fine! Along with repeated ad nauseum nothing happens on a failed check is a failure to end all failures in bolded large case italicized to prove how wrong we are not to have something "interesting" happen.

Give me a break. You haven't said "the games you like better". You've just repeatedly stated that our games are boring because there's no risk, there's no reason we couldn't do it your way or that something completely unrelated to the action taking really is completely logical. If we don't understand perhaps stop yelling "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" and try explaining what we don't understand in a different way than just quoting rules and telling us it works just like our game while telling use yet again that we just don't understand.

EDIT - since I'm ranting I might as well add the never-ending "If you aren't running a collaborative game it's basically a GM controlled railroad" and "If you don't describe every blade of grass, fill in some detail, have detailed rules on how to do everything, it's not a simulation." Along with a few others I'm probably forgetting.

 

[The Firebird]

My point is simply that rolling the dice to see if you get what you stake is not deciding that you get what you stake, any more than drawing lots to see who gets whatever it is that has been put at stake is not the same as deciding to get what you stake.

Do you disagree? Do you think that winning <whatever> in the drawing of lots is the same as deciding to have <whatever>?

I think everyone is in agreement about this point. And indeed I don't think anyone has ever disagreed.

Respectfully, given that you keep using this example when you've been told explicitly that we understand this difference, and given that you didn't get my statement about reality and told me the exact same thing as if it was new information...

...is it possible that you've been misreading some of the criticisms?

 

[pemerton]

Ok, guess I read the entry incorrectly. I thought the "but" was reflecting back on the answer to the question. But it is rather that you get to ask the question, but have to be prepared for the worst anyway. Thank you for clarifying! I don't think this is the only game affected by this misreading

I don't know what "but" or "prepared for the worst" you're referring to, sorry.

But I doubt that anyone who has read the AW rulebook, and thus seen the example from Move Snowball of the MC, in response to the miss on Read a Sitch, making the hard move of the grenade attack, would be confused.

 

[Campbell]

When Apocalypse World and Dungeon World say "prepare for the worst" they are indicating that the GM is given explicit permission to make as hard and direct move as they like. It means that basically anything that follows from the established fiction and the GM's principles is on the table.

The context for this is covered in the MC Chapter of AW.

Then, “what do you do?”

Remember the principles. Remember to address yourself to the characters, remember to misdirect, and remember to never speak your move’s name. Say what happens to the characters as though it were their world that’s the real one.

Here are guidelines for choosing your moves:

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.

When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.

But again, unless a player’s character has handed you the opportunity, limit yourself to a move that sets up future moves, your own and the players’ characters’.

 

[pemerton]

If what the players want is so precious to them, maybe you should consider have that drive the story for a while, rather than denying it based on a single roll, and insert your own completely unrelated GM decided thing to do instead?

Does anyone GM posting in this thread that, other than you?

(I assume that you do it. If you don't, then what makes you think anyone else does?)

And the concern about the consequence should be matching character intent or traits have been conspicuously absent in all other examples of fail forward I can think of in this thread.

Intent + task is core to Burning Wheel. It's not part of Apocalypse World.

As for the example from Move Snowball, what is the reason that Marie is being attacked by Plover and co? Do you know - have you read the example?

But in both these examples there was no change in situation beyond new information being established?

In one example, instead of finding the looked-for mace, the PCs finds the black arrows. In the other, the PC acquires the angel feather that he needs, but it is cursed.

Please tell me how that in any way shape or form connected with the phenomenom I described? Yes these are things that is in these games, but I absolutely fail to see how they in any way adresses the issue at hand.

if you rely on stated GM principles to keep the GM in check from abusing the rules - what is the problem with accepting the age old trad GM principle that the job of the GM is to ensure the game is enjoyable for everyone!

Principles are not for the purpose of preventing abuse - they are for *achieving a certain sort of play experience.

A GM-driven game of the sort I take your "trad" principle to point to is not the sort of play experience I am looking for in RPGing.

Otherwise, the "issue at hand" was this:

To construct a more concrete example.
The strong character is having a habit of wanting to break into random homes in densely populated areas at daytime by kicking down the doors. For some reason there tend to be a company of guards chasing him away from the still standing door whenever he fails.

Meanwhile the weak character is being more discerning. They seek out fascinating and unusual looking houses and try to kick down the doors at night. For some reason these doors tend to fall apart with a loud bang waking up everyone inside, but allowing for some time to try to dig out what might be hiding in there.

These are rules as written. You could argue that the GM should in the fiction take into account the strength of the characters to determine the degree to use the success with consequences path. But that would be putting a responsibility on the GM that is not expressed, and with absolutely no rule support.

How do these mooted episodes of play conform to "being a fan of the players' characters"? At least as far as the strong character is concerned, it seems to be about making him seem ridiculous.

Have you read the examples of play in the AW rulebook - of which there are many? And the statements and explications of the principles? Do you think that your example conforms to them?

 

[pemerton]

Do we all agree that the failure or success with complication states of fail forward resolution introduce GM-driven complications (at least for most games that implement it)?

No.

If not, why not?

For the reasons I've stated, extensively, upthread. And in other threads that you've also participated in.

The first thing to note is that a player can constrain or influence how another game participant is to exercise their authority. This is a standard feature of any player-driven RPGing

The play of a RPG is all about the establishment, and ongoing generation of, a fiction. shared among the participants. It's this fact of fiction that is one of the things that distinguishes RPGing from boardgaming, or purely mechanical wargaming.

The ongoing generation requires the fiction to be created. This is what RPG procedures do - and as I posted, in a pretty conventional/mainstream RPG, the two main modes of creation are (i) the GM narrating a new scene/situation/encounter, and (ii) the actions that the players declare for their PCs generate consequences.

How are these things done? Who establishes what the elements will be, what the themes will be, how they are related, what possibilities they open up or foreclose? These are some of the elements of control.

If all the players influence is what their PCs try to do, then as I said they have the bare minimum control that is consistent with the game being a typical RPG at all. But that doesn't have to be all. It's not all the players can do in Gygaxian dungeon crawling, for instance: when the players are in the process of obtaining information, it is the GM who is controlling the information; but when the players exploit that information to achieve their PC goals (in virtue of their knowledge of how their declared actions will resolve) they are able to exercise control. In effect, they are able to oblige the GM to narrate the things that they want to be part of the fiction (to give a very simple example: by saying "I lay a plank over the pit", and then "I walk over the plank", the player obliges the GM to narrate "You get to the other side" rather than "You fall down the pit").

The idea of making a move that obliges someone else to make a particular move or at least constrains their move space is a fairly standard part of game play. In chess, by checking the opponent's king, I constrict their move options. In bridge and similar games, by choosing what to lead I control the play of the cards, exploit my length in a suit, run those who are short-suited, etc.

In Gygaxian play, the players aspire to get to a level of knowledge of, and position in relation to, the fiction that they can similarly control it. (Which, in this context, isn't the same as narrating it. Just as I can control your play in bridge, without being the one who plays your cards.)

Burning Wheel uses a completely different set of techniques to also allow players to exercise control over the shared fiction.

here is the general model for resolution in Burning Wheel (there are some instances, especially extended conflict resolution, which don't fully conform to, and/or elaborate on, this general model; I use the word "attribute" to cover the full range of skills, abilities etc that can be used to resolve a declared action):

*The player says what their PC is doing. That requires describing the task their PC is attempting, and also the intent with which the task is being performed. This step can involve some back and forth with the GM, to get clear on how the player's conception of their PC's action fits into the situation that the GM is describing to the player.

*The GM states what attribute(s) the player has to test on. This follows from the task being attempted. The player is free to make suggestions here, and there can be back-and-forth. In practice, this step and the preceding step may often be undertaken together, as establishing the relevant attribute(s) and properly specifying the task are closely related.

*The GM states the obstacle. This is determined by consulting the (many) obstacle descriptors, both general ones and ones found under each attribute's explanation in the rules. This may require extrapolation from the given descriptors to cover the current fictional situation. It is important to note that, at this point, the player is committed. In the fiction, the PC is beginning their attempt.

*If it is not already clear because implicit in the fiction, the GM also tells the player what will happen if the test fails (see further below).

*The player builds their dice pool. I won't go through this whole process, but at this stage the player may be able to bring non-attribute features of their PC to bear so as to increase their pool (all relevant attributes have already been factored in with the specification of the task).

*The player rolls the dice and counts their success (the default is 4+). This is compared to the obstacle. If the successes meet or beat the obstacle, the PC succeeds at their task and realises their intent. Otherwise the intent is not realised, and the GM narrates what occurs (it is the GM's decision, as part of this process of establishing consequences of failure, whether the task succeeds or fails; the only mandated component of the consequence is failure of the intent).​

The BW player constrains what the GM says at each point - framing the scene, establishing failure consequences - because the GM does these things by reference to the priorities the player has established for their PC.

 

[pemerton]

I know--this is exactly what i said in my previous post:

At least it seems we're now on the same page about what I am claiming.

The PC's action doesn't cause anything in the real world, as a special case of the general principle that imaginary things don't have real effects.

The player's declaration of their PC's action causes some things to happen in the real world, including prompting others to say and imagine various things depending on how some dice rolls turn out.

 

[The Firebird]

The PC's action doesn't cause anything in the real world, as a special case of the general principle that imaginary things don't have real effects.

The player's declaration of their PC's action causes some things to happen in the real world, including prompting others to say and imagine various things depending on how some dice rolls turn out.

Yes.