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

[JConstantine]

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 think this is a misunderstanding of fail forward. The GM does not have to "introduce something that changes what the entire scene is about". It can re-contextualise the scene, but it can also simply make the current situation worse/more dangerous while still maintaining the players' intent/goal. The example from media that immediately springs to mind is Leia's "rescue" in A New Hope: they're cut off by Storm Troopers, so Leia blasts a hole into the garbage chute that they all jump into, leading to the compactor - their goal is still to escape, they've just gone from the frying pan into the fire.

 

[AlViking]

No, this is you reading something into what I actually posted that’s not there.

@Lanefan claimed that his preferred method works the same as how actions and consequences work in real life. That’s not true… actions in real life have consequences beyond just failure at the task at hand.

If I have the wrong keys to my house and try to unlock the door the only consequence is that I don't open the door. Just like real life. There may be other consequences because of other things going on as well in game as well as in life but those are completely unconnected to not opening the door.

This really shouldn't be that hard. The consequence of a failed action is that you failed doing what you were attempting.

I don’t care if @Lanefan likes to play his game that way… that’s his preference, and that’s fine. But if he says he likes to play that way “because it’s closer to the way things work in the real world” then I’m going to point out the flaw in his reasoning.

Not because his preference is wrong or problematic in any way, but because the stated reason for his preference is flawed.

My comments in no way were about valuing one type of play over the other.

The fact that you consider his reasoning flawed is telling him he is doing it wrong. If I can't open my front door, I can use the garage door remote, go to the neighbors and get the copy we gave them. If it's an emergency we have a foot tall stone gargoyle I could use to break the window. But all of those things are choices I can make after the fact, they're things I do subsequent to the failure but not caused by the failure.

 

[Campbell]

@AlViking

Not connected in the deterministic way some people might prefer and not connected in any way whatsoever are very different phenomenon. Like night and day. I get that if you prefer deterministic mechanics that difference may not matter to those making such statements, but it is essential to the description and fair treatment of a number of playstyles I enjoy playing and running. Conflate these two things is basically accusing people of running and playing nonsense games where the points are made up and the rules do not matter. This could not be further from the case.

You are free to like or not like whatever you want to. However, if you are going to speak on the implications of a given technique I'd ask you to at least consider what people who have been utilizing them for decades have to say instead of assuming our play is nonsense. You do not have to put down other styles of play to boost your own.

 

[Campbell]

Saying I prefer a process because it feels more like real life (to me) and thus helps me suspend suspension of disbelief is fine.

Using like real life as a unexamined standard that should apply to all roleplaying games and basically telling everyone who plays differently that their play is lacking is a big problem.

A bigger problem still is using it as a limiter for terms like agency (wherein agency that exceeds real life agency no longer qualifies as agency) specifically because it moralizes what play experiences and desires are valid.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Yet you keep posting...

 

[Faolyn]

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:

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):
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.

Right. So. Absolutely none of this address what I was talking about, though. The farrier is a normal feature in a medieval settlement; it makes sense that there would be one, so having the GM--or even a player--create on the fly doesn't bother people. It would be weirder if the location didn't have one, unless you could justify; e.g., the village is too small and everyone goes to the next village a few miles down the road for all their horseshoeing needs.

But the runes are, for the most part, not a normal feature, unless it's been established that runes are a commonly used decoration. Why did the GM say there were runes there? Almost certainly because they have some meaning. Why do they have meaning? Because the GM decided they do. But then you have the players deciding what that meaning is. And you can keep framing it as "what they hope it means," but it's the same thing for all practical purposes. The fact that it's contingent on a roll doesn't make "hope" any different from "decides."

(The reason people may have "missed" that example you posted before is because, as I've said, these long quotes of yours are both too long and have little or nothing to do with what's being talked about; it's difficult to figure out what the actual purpose of these examples are, other than to show off your games. Next time before you post one, you may want to consider just summarizing it and just getting to the point.)

 

[Campbell]

I'd like to clarify that the more constrained and grounded approach I take to intent in games that use a variation of intent and task (Blades in the Dark, Daggerheart, Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition) is not like official or the only way to apply it's just a preference that I have. This is one of the playstyle differences exist between groups that prefer Narrativist play. There's not just one way to handle intent.

 

[Faolyn]

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?

This is very incorrect. The GM does not have to introduce anything that changes what the scene is about, and if they do introduce something, it does not have to go against what the players were intending. It's perfectly acceptable for the complication to be simply "this takes extra time" or even a simple mechanical penalty. Additionally, in some games, especially PbtA games, the player gets to decide what the complication is, or at least what form it takes.

 

[JConstantine]

I know what AW says.

I simply wanted to make clear I don't have access to the primary source, and found one secondary source (Harper) conflicted, in my view, with another secondary source (you). Thanks for quoting the book.

From p 109 (of the original rulebook):

Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.​

It's not a game in which the MC embodies the setting. The players have the job of saying what their characters remember, and of answering the MC's questions about their characters' lives and surrounding.

The MC is the one portraying the environment, the NPCs, etc. How is that not embodying the setting? This comes across like you hold an incredibly non-standard/peculiar understanding of the word "embody". Which, frankly, a lot of the disagreement in this thread seems to stem from.

The departure from the "GM embodies the setting approach" which is already evident in what I quoted

No, I don't think that is evident at all. Literally the first line in your excerpt is: "Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way."

is only reinforced by the rules for the first session, and the GM principle "Ask provocative questions and build on the answers". From p 113, elaborating that principle:

Start simple: “What’s your living space like?” “Who’s known each other longest?” But as play proceeds, ask for immediate and intimate details of the characters’ experiences. . . .​

​

Once you have the player’s answer, build on it. I mean three things by that: (1) barf apocalyptica upon it, by adding details and imagery of your own; (2) refer to it later in play, bringing it back into currency; and (3) use it to inform your own developing apocalyptic aesthetic, incorporating it - and more importantly, its implications - into your own vision.​

​

It’s especially important to ask, the first time each character opens her brain to the world’s psychic maelstrom, what that’s​

like for her. Maybe it’s the same for everybody, maybe it’s different. And after the first time, always, always add details of your own.​

There is no GMing advice similar to this found in any "trad" RPG that I'm aware of.

So Tomas Härenstam defined Mutant: Year Zero as neo-trad, right? I don't know if you consider that distinct enough from trad, but if not, similar appears in other Year Zero games. For example, from Tales from the Loop (various salient parts from different subsections):

DO THIS TOGETHER:​

15. Define the group’s Hideout.​

16. Answer the Gamemaster’s questions.​

---

After all players have created a Kid, and before the game starts, the Gamemaster will ask a number of questions of you. You should answer them as honestly as you can, and from the perspective of your Kids.
The Gamemaster chooses 4-6 questions from the list directed at the Kids, and distributes them one at a time, and 2-3 from the list of questions addressed to the whole group. It is the responsibility of the Gamemaster to ensure that all players get to answer questions and gets roughly the same amount of focus.

QUESTIONS TO THE KIDS
■ In what way has your Problem gone from bad to
worse lately?
■ What do your parents do for work?
■ What do you think about school?
■ What is your favorite food?
■ Do you have siblings? What do you think about
them?
■ What does your room look like?
■ What do you dream about at night?
■ What makes you angry?
■ What do you want to work at when you grow up?
■ What do you think about sports?
■ What is your experience with robots?
■ What is the furthest you have traveled from your home town?
■ How are you affected by your Pride?

QUESTIONS TO THE GROUP
■ Who in the group has the most to say?
■ When did you get to know each other?
■ What makes you laugh?
■ What secrets do you have?
■ Who dislikes you?
■ Who wants to be in the gang?
■ What are you fighting about?
■ Who among you is most mocked?
■ Who is the leader?
■ Who is in love with whom?
■ What sets you apart from other kids?
■ What are you not talking about?
■ What do you like to do?

---

PLAYING EVERYDAY LIFE
To come up with scenes related to Everyday Life, you should consult the players’ character sheets or talk to the players to get a picture of their Kids’ Problems, Prides, and Relationships.
You should also bear in mind what they answered to the questions you asked when the Kids were created. Write down some ideas of what can happen when you do come up with them.

---

EXAMPLE
The Gamemaster: Ok, let’s start the game! It’s a damp and rainy weekend in late October. Rumors are spreading about cut-backs at the Loop, and many of the adults are irritated and quiet. Outside, it is muddy and dark. Leaves cover the ground, and the cold from the lake blows in over the island with the smell of water and fish. Who gets the first scene?
Player 1 (Jacob): Let me have it.
The Gamemaster: Do you have an idea, or do you want me to give you a scene?
Player 1: I have one. I am sitting in my room, grounded by mom, waiting for my father to come home and give me a scolding.
The Gamemaster: What have you done?
Player 1: She found me looking through her medicine bottles.
The Gamemaster: You hear your mom walking around on the ground floor. Suddenly, she stops and at the same moment, you hear the familiar sound of your dad’s car as he parks out front. A moment later the door opens, and you hear your mom and dad talking, but you don’t hear what they’re saying. What are you doing?
Player 1: I’m sitting on my bed sorting my Garbage Pail Kids cards and I’m mad. She totally overreacted.
The Gamemaster: You hear your dad coming up the stairs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a GM I am absolutely not interested in doing content generation myself. I find myself attracted to prewritte adventures, but I have run 3 massive homebrew campaigns. In all of these practically all content has been directly inspired by player input. In the first the premise of what was going on was so deeply anchored in the original characters that when the player of the final of the original characters were leaving I hated to cancel the campaign as I couldn't see how to continue it. I had not yet managed to weave the new characters aproperiately into my worldbuilding, to feel it was structurally sound.

In my second attempt I was usually coming to the session with a simple idea as a seed, like "stuck at sea", "Oasis metropolis", "pirate treasure cove", And fleshed that out based on how the players were interacting with it, closely following their intentions as guidance.

My third attempt was the most radical and successful. This was originally intended as an urban "hung over" scenario. However the players didn't care about why they had woken up in jail, so the entire thing developed into a civil war scenario based on what they decided to engage in. Here I made good use of techniques like asking them to each name a thing they wanted to see in the session at the start of a couple of sessions, give the players control over certain NPCs in some dramatic moments (Those NPCs are the most unforgetable characters I have ever encountered in an RPG), and having them give each other xp boosts for coming up with cool ideas.

All of these games were run using a strictly traditional framework with noone ever questioning me in my authority to not only introduce content at will but even bending structural game foundations like having players play NPCs.

I absolutely reject the notion that I were "drastically limiting the game to dealing only with things you, the GM, decide on." Yes, I might have been the final decission maker. But I absolutely don't think that limited the game in any way. Indeed I would contend that I believe I put less limitations in how player input entered the fiction than what you would find in a (typical) structured game that try to ensure player input to be established into the fiction.

Yeah, I have very little to say about whatever sorts of play go on in different groups. I'm not there. I played games that sound similar to what you describe between 1975 and about 1997 or so that I would describe as 'trad'. I've played in some even since then, though I have not run something like that too much. I've also run games that use 'narrativist' techniques, evolving gradually but mostly pretty much like what Lumpley, et al describe nowadays as modern Narrativist play.

So, I do see some pretty stark differences, and I see tells within how I hear people here speaking that make me think there will be significant material differences between games I run and ones you run. If you talked to me 30 years ago, I might have been doing and saying what you are now. I feel that my understanding and the range of play and enjoyment has expanded in those 30 years.

Yet to hear what some people in these parts talk, I'm just some delusional fool who's not doing anything different from what I was doing 30 years ago! It's balderdash, frankly. I don't really know what to say when I hear you telling me stuff about techniques and play that my experience strongly suggests come from a perspective that doesn't include certain things.

But none of this, for me, is criticism except in the same sense that I would criticize a software developer who makes claims about some techniques they haven't mastered that I have.