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

[AlViking]

But if nothing happens when you fail to open the jar--there are no consequences, nothing interesting that happens if they fail--why bother rolling? It's a waste of time. It's dull.

The reason we roll dice is to resolve uncertainty. It's not about wasting time, it's not about being exciting, it's not about the desires or goals of the players. For me, you're putting the cart before the horse or perhaps more accurately the narrative before the check. That's fine, it's just not what I want to do.

If I narrated some jars with rusted on lids, it could easily have just been background color. On the other hand, if the lids are rusty it shouldn't be easy to open. But there's also the possibility that I had in my notes that good old Mad Marvin the wizard was doing experiments with various dangerous creatures like oozes that he stored in the jars. Because of the failure nothing happened but if they had been successful? Roll for initiative. It doesn't matter to me whether the characters find out about these oozes, perhaps later on they'll find a journal and realize they missed a potentially dangerous encounter. Perhaps the jars are just old and full of pickles and I asked for a roll because I thought it made sense that really old jars should be hard to open and the characters tried to open one. If they continue to spend time on it? In this case I'll just go into narration mode that they waste some time opening jars of pickles that have gone bad and we move on.

A single check and description only takes a minute and it feels more immersive to me. I would ask for a check because the players declared an action. If I think it's a waste of time (more than a minute or two) then at that point I'll go into narration mode and move on. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Lanefan]

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>?

It's different if you break it into two steps.

The step that's common to both is the randomness of whether the bettor (or dice-roller) wins or loses.

The step that's different is that in one the bettor also gets to declare what the stakes are, where in the other the stakes are set externally, usually by whoever is running the lottery.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why shouldn't the GM try to make their game more interesting and less likely to grind to a halt due to a bad roll?

The GM is certainly welcome to, if that's the kind of play going on. But it shouldn't IMO be assumed. Firstly, because the game really shouldn't "grind to a halt" due to a bad roll, and if it does it is IMO sn uncommon issue that needs to be addressed in the moment and steps taken to safeguard against it happening again.

Secondly, in some playstyles the GM's job to run the world and react to the PCs actions, not to insert "exciting" events to keep "the story" moving. That's a choice.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes in game terms you might have disadvantage on charisma rolls. Note how this treats the events as independent.

But it's only because of the failure to drive. As were all the other consequences I posted. It's not independent; it's a direct result.

 

[pemerton]

This was the qualifier for Campbell:

And this was the one from AbdulAlhazred:

Unless I have somehow completely misunderstood your example it seem like at least Campbell's condition should be valid for MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic?

However it is true that I cannot properly identify if you were engaging in what AbdulAlhazred would consider "Narrativist play". I might have read to much of my own understanding of "Narrativist play" into both his statement, and your example, given the lack of a solid commonly understood language. So I assumed it was relevant, I thought that assumption was well founded, but I apologize if I was mistaken.

Yes, the play of MHRP/Cortex+ Fantasy that I described would be characterised by @AbdulAlhazred as narrativist play. It is pretty light narrativism in thematic terms, but I suspect comparable in that respect to some of AbdulAlhazred's Dungeon World play.

But I have no idea how you think that what I described in some way contradicts this from AbdulAlhazred:

First of all, there's a somewhat different attitude towards characters and roles. Trad play is fundamentally rooted in a competitive skill-test model of play where the GM's goal is to play the opponents. So, in that model of roles, the idea of trying to subvert this opposition by some meta-channel is a viable concept. But this kind of arrangement of roles is absent in Narrativist play. I'm exploring the nature of my character, and/or possibly some other elements of the fiction that form the premise. There's no concept of petitioning anyone. I can propose fiction, or interpretations of fiction, perhaps enact them.

The play I described did not involve a "competitive skill-test model of play". There was no "subversion of opposition by some meta-channel". The player did not petition anyone. They played their character in the situation - which is what AbdulAlhazred calls "exploring the nature of my character and/or some other elements of the fiction that form the premise". In particular, the player chose to have their character pursue the expedient option of escape. This theme of expedience emerged again, when the same player had the same character escape from the dungeon with Dark Elves' gold which he stole, while the other PCs were slogging it out with the Dark Elves and then had a long trudge back to the surface without their scout/guide.

That is player-driven rising action across a moral line - narrativist play - although as I said the thematic content is pretty light.

I also have no idea how you think that the play that I described in some way contradicts this from @Campbell:

So, in games were intent is meaningful, I expect two things. That the intention is the character's diegetic intent and not the player's hope for the scene and that intention is credible.

What Campbell is calling for here is that the player advocate for the character and not something external to the character. In the episode of play that I described, the intent was the character's diegetic intent - ie to read the runes with the hope that they would show a way out. The player was not expressing a hope for the scene that was independent of their PC's intent.

This is me reflecting back how I read some of the participants in this thread writing. If you think this is misrepresenting it, this is giving you an opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings.

I absolutely do not do it. I assume people are honest in what they are writing, and from what they were writing I pointed out that it seem to me like at least someone are doing it.

Who?

That is, who in this thread do you see using failure narration to push the focus of play away from the player's concerns for their PCs?

I mean, I've just shown that you have drastically misread both AbdulAlhazred and Campbell. Your misreading appears to have two causes: (1) you are looking for "gotchas", and are trying to find them by reading casual forum posts as if they were technical instructional or legislative texts (eg @Cambpell's point would be a bit clearer if it read "in games were intent is meaningful, I expect two things. That the intention is the character's diegetic intent and not merely the player's hope for the scene"); (2) you seem to be not actually grasping what motivates and drives "narrativist" RPGing.

In relation to (2), it is very striking to me that it seems not to have occurred to you (or other posters criticising this episode of play) that there are other things that the player could have put at stake in reading the runes, and that the choice to try and find a way out crosses a moral line. More generally, you seem to think only in terms of either instrumental/expedient action declarations (of the sort that are typical in "make it to the finish line" play of D&D and similar RPGs) or else in terms of "chaos"/"comedy" (like your Fiasco examples) that subverts any seriousness of the fiction and its themes.

This is one of the things that make conversation about this entire topic rather hopeless. On one hand people try to say something about the general "fail forward" principle, but then it turn out that there are always some "authoritative" implementation of fail forward that doesn't conform to some detail in the proposed general statement about "fail forward". This lead to it being impossible to talk about "fail forward" as a concept, as it start seeming to be plain ill defined.

As I read the thread, it seems to be people who are not very familiar with games that use "fail forward" or "no whiffing" as a principle who are trying to come up with general formulations, generally beginning from rejections of formulations that have been offered by those who have actually played Burning Wheel, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, etc.

You have a copy of BW Revised. So you can see how, on p 34, it says this:

Two Directions . . . Failure is not the end of the line, but is a complication that pushes the story in another direction. Failure Complicates the Matter . . . the GM should present the players with the possible ramifications of their tests."​

That is "fail forward": failure complicates the matters, generates ramifications, pushes things in some or other direction. What counts as an appropriate complication or ramification; what sorts of directions should be introduced based on failure; depends on the other principles of the game. As well as, obviously, the current contents and trajectory of the fiction.

Being aware of the problem with naïve FF might still be of value; and I guess you would be happy about being able to promote about how cleverly BW has worked around this issue.

I don't believe that there is a problem of "naive fail forward" except in your posts. I've never encountered it as an account of a problem from actual play, as best I recall. Have you?

I have not read anything beyond what you posted, the hard moves of announcing future badness and Putting her on the spot appear to be clearly anchored in the character. The grenade is anchored in the fiction established, but I fail to see how it is likely to be anchored in the character. It is likely a perfectly appropriate AW move. Especially when taking into account that it appeared the defence of FF that this was meant to address was only meant to be valid for BW, not AW (see below).

First, announcing future badness is not (generally) a hard move. It's not, in that example. Even putting someone in a spot is not (generally) a hard move, and in that example it's not. The hard move is having the NPCs make their attack and inflict harm.

Having not read the whole example, and thus having no idea why the GM has narrated that Plover and friends are attacking Marie, I don't see how you can possibly know how what the GM is doing in that excerpt is or is not related to what has previously transpired, Marie's character, etc.

I would think people like you knowing the rules would be very happy to clear up my misunderstandings. I have tried to formulate anything related to AW as questions. If I have failed and given impression that I make hard claims about that system I sincerely and deeply apologize.

This thread is not the place to try and teach you how to play Apocalypse World. I mean, I and others have posted things about it, and you have not believed us. I tell you that your imagined fears - of ridiculous comedy generated by a group of Fiasco players who somehow ended up playing AW instead - don't seem to me to have much basis in reality, but you don't believe me.

So why would I post more about the game, when you appear not to accept any of what I have said so far?

 

[AlViking]

As someone who doesn't drive for medical reasons... this is ridiculous. Without the ability to drive, you get cut off from so many things. You have to shell out more money in order to get necessities delivered. If you need to get places, you have to hope you can get rides. You have to hope you can pay for the rides. You may not be able to get jobs, or you may lose a job, because you can't get there via public transportation or they require you to drive (my last job decided, towards the end, to turn line staff into drivers--although fortunately I didn't lose the job because of my non-driving). People in general look down on you when they earn you can't drive. In game terms, this might be even be disad on some Charisma rolls, meaning you may never be able to go on that date.

So yes. If you fail your test, it has direct consequences both immediate and long-lasting. These things would not be consequences if you could drive.

A while back I was in an accident and the immediate result of the accident was that I totally screwed up my knee and couldn't put any weight on it at all*. I had to have pretty major surgery to put things back together and go through months of physical therapy. After a year I'm finally mostly back to where I was before the accident. On the other hand before I had the surgery I was getting along pretty well with a brace, I just decided I didn't want to put up with a brace.

But if I were GM of my life, other than I'd be generous and ask for a roll for "don't be an idiot" because I like my players, the only result of the accident was that my knee could no longer support any weight. My life was absolutely impacted by my f'ed up knee but from the moment after the accident the reason things were f'ed up was because I could not put weight on my knee. As GM, I would view being on crutches not as the result of the accident itself, it was because of the knee that could not support weight.

We can always make connections from one decision we've made, one conversation we've had to all sorts of things that have happened in our lives. It's the butterfly effect. If I had not gotten on project X I would not have gotten skill Y but I might have developed skill Z instead. But then I wouldn't have overheard a conversation that meant ... well it just goes on and on. Did I end up in a wheelchair for a while because of the accident or because I chose to have surgery? Or was it just one decision after another making a change and that change affecting the next decision and so on and so forth.

We look back on our lives and tell a story, a narrative of what happened and how we got to where we are but that narrative doesn't really exist except inside our head or, for some people, in their games. For me? There are only immediate changes and then dealing with the changes.

*the accident was totally my fault, no one else was hurt, only damage was a torn ACL and Rear Minuscis. Turns out attempting to bend your leg backwards at the knee is a bad idea.

 

[Lanefan]

Because one is a game.

So?

I’m not talking about having to use a different method. I’m talking about the only consequence being failure to complete the task attempted. There can very clearly be more consequences than just failure.

Sure, but if every time you failed to open the pickle jar you dropped (and maybe broke) it or hurt your wrist or the cat dragged in something half-dead you'd pretty quickly come to associate Bad Stuff with stuck pickle jars and thus you'd stop eating pickles from jars entirely.

Same is true in a game setting - if every failure brings calamity, why would anyone (other than the most gonzo of players) ever want to risk failure?

Insisting on viewing it that way divorces the task attempted from any context. I don’t see how that’s useful in any way toward understanding the action attempted.

With many simple tasks, when it comes to their actual resolution any surrounding context other than maybe a time limit is often utterly irrelevant. Doesn't matter if you're trying to open the pickle jar in your kitchen or at the beach or in your camper in the wilderness - if you can't open it, closed it remains.

Again, the same is true in the game setting. Sometimes there's time pressure, other than that the surrounding context is usually irrelevant to the simple success-fail resolution of a task (though it may very well affect the success-fail odds before resolution occurs e.g. you're more likely to fail at climbing a cliff if you're blinded than you are if you can see).

 

[pemerton]

because what they said was determined by the roll initiated by the player when his PC read the runes right then. In that moment in the fiction those runes were not fixed and could have said two different things, depending on the outcome of the roll.

At the table it was not fixed. In the fiction it had been fixed ever since the runes were written.

The timing man. They couldn't have said anything in the fiction

They could, and they did.

Similarly, in The Big Sleep someone killed the chauffeur, even though the author - Raymond Chandler - didn't know who that was.

And just as how, in your spell example, the player chooses now to have their PC learn a spell, and thus it has been true for some time past in the fiction that their PCs was practising that spell.

 

[JConstantine]

Forget the game for a minute. Just think about how consequences occur in real life. If you fail to do a thing in real life, do you really think the only consequence is that you fail to do the thing?

In real life, sometimes the only consequence is that you failed to do the thing.
For example, say you have an interview for a potential new job that pays better than your current one. You flub it and you don't get the job. Nothing about your living situation materially changed. Now, if your current job isn't paying enough to cover the bills, mortgage/rent, etc., then failing to land the new job will have consequences as you risk defaulting on your mortgage, need to cut back on expenditures, etc. However, if your current job does pay enough, then there's no real loss beyond the missed potential of additional savings/disposable income, which isn't actually a loss.

No they are not “unconnected” as I would typically expect the word to be used.

I think a better description would be "indirectly connected", where @AlViking clearly wants direct connection.

 

[pemerton]

So you don't think that the player hoped the runes would say what he was rolling for?

Of course he did. But he wasn't making a "hope roll".

The player of a PC in D&D who rolls an attack hopes that the attack will defeat their opponent. But no one calls it a "hope roll". We call it an attack roll, because that's what the PC is doing.

Likewise, in the episode of play that I described, the PC was reading runes.