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

[AlViking]

Boring is, of course, relative. We're all welcome to ignore or abstract away what ever parts of play we don't find fun.

I can understand that for some games any test or roll is a bigger event, but in a D&D or similar game? Rolling and narrating what happens takes a literal minute or two. I just don't see how that equals boredom. Failure may actually be more exciting because the group is being chased by an ogre. Other times it may be disappointing because you don't get the treasure from the vault so you don't have the cash for that shiny new armor you saw in the storefront but you can't always get what you want.

 

[Faolyn]

What do you consider "effectively said"? Delusional was the actual word used. I know I've never used those words to describe the play of others (as far as I remember), just that I feel some ways about some games and feel other ways about other games.

There have been people who have very strongly hinted at the inferiority of narrative methods. As one example (I'm not going through the last 500 pages) every time "quantum cook" was used, for example. That wasn't a compliment. That wasn't a neutral observation. It was an insult, a direct reference to the "quantum ogre" which is considered to be a sign of bad GMing.

Did you use quantum cook? I don't remember off-hand. But you didn't call out those who did. So I'm pointing out that you only care about the insults when it's on your "side."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can understand that for some games any test or roll is a bigger event, but in a D&D or similar game? Rolling and narrating what happens takes a literal minute or two. I just don't see how that equals boredom. Failure may actually be more exciting because the group is being chased by an ogre. Other times it may be disappointing because you don't get the treasure from the vault so you don't have the cash for that shiny new armor you saw in the storefront but you can't always get what you want.

I'm with you. I prefer to abstract away very little.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There have been people who have very strongly hinted at the inferiority of narrative methods. As one example (I'm not going through the last 500 pages) every time "quantum cook" was used, for example. That wasn't a compliment. That wasn't a neutral observation. It was an insult, a direct reference to the "quantum ogre" which is considered to be a sign of bad GMing.

Did you use quantum cook? I don't remember off-hand. But you didn't call out those who did. So I'm pointing out that you only care about the insults when it's on your "side."

So you have to point out every example or none of them? I thought we were on a spectrum here.

And having something be context-sensitive isn't a general bad, just not what everyone wants.

 

[Faolyn]

So you have to point out every example or none of them? I thought we were on a spectrum here.

And having something be context-sensitive isn't a general bad, just not what everyone wants.

If you're going to point out things that insult you, shouldn't you also point out things that are insulting to others as well?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you're going to point out things that insult you, shouldn't you also point out things that are insulting to others as well?

The delusional thing wasn't directed at me, but I suppose I could call out more people.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The delusional thing wasn't directed at me, but I suppose I could call out more people.

The hero we deserve, but not the hero we need.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The hero we deserve, but not the hero we need.

Well, just know that I'm here for you.

 

[Lanefan]

But it has stakes beyond simply the picking of the lock. There are other potential consequences.

Which points out what might be a difference here.

When I think of what happens in the fiction due to a roll, I'm thinking of the immediate stakes on which the roll is made. Do I climb the cliff or fall. Can I open the lock or am I stuck here. Can I sneak past the guards or do they notice me. Those are stakes.

Anything and everything beyond that falls under downstream consequences, which are not the same thing as immediate stakes and are also not always (as in very rarely) 100% predictable or guaranteed. They can very often be changed, mitigated, or even eliminated by subsequent actions provided those actions are themselves successful.

Falling due to a failed climb doesn't necessarily even mean I'm going to go splat at the bottom - I might grab a handhold and slow or stop my fall, I might have someone below willing to take the risk of trying to catch me, someone (including myself) might have a magical means of preventing or easing my fall, and so on; and despite the fairly obvious train of causality in the fiction these would all - if available - be declared and resolved as independent actions.

In hindsight, it might come down to did I go splat because I fell or did I go splat because you didn't catch me.

Not at all... I showed how it could have a consequence other than just an unopened pickle jar.

A downstream consequence, not related to the immediate stakes of opening the jar.

But as far as games go, I wouldn't expect a game to even worry about such mundanity, or if it did come up for some reason, I wouldn't bother gating the opening of the jar with a roll. I'd just say "You open the jar... now what?"

Ditto re worrying about the mindanity in an actual game. The example is intentionally very mundane in order to remove all the baggage surrounding the break-in example we've been using.

Mitigating risk is one thing. Refusing to proceed unless all risk can be mitigated? That's another. You've described plenty of instances of play where players have been less cautious. You've even advocated for PvP with "Let them fight, says I" even though this would obviously be against their best interests.

If your game actually grinds to a halt once danger rears its head then I'd say it's probably the worst D&D game ever. I don't expect that's the case, though, so why you're trying to argue this is beyond me.

But this just displays a continued misunderstanding of the idea. If we took a session I run of Stonetop and one you run of your version of D&D, then yes, a roll in Stonetop is likely weightier than one in D&D. But there will almost certainly be fewer rolls.

If the fiction suggests little to no chance of dangerous consequences, then I'm not going to ask for a roll. I'm only going to call for a roll in Stonetop when there's something at risk. If there's no risk at all, then I'm simply going to allow the character to succeed.

Also, the idea that if a character fails, they're getting "hosed" is just... I don't know... it seems adversarial even for D&D.

A lot of the examples we've been given of fail-forward in this thread seem to be doing just that: hosing the characters by adding in extra complications rather than just narrating a straight nothing-happens result. Some of the games even tell the GM do this, put in terms of "always drive them toward conflict" or similarm which makes it seem like a very stressful way to play.

It's a consequence has been my point. You guys are fighting tooth and nail to avoid saying what's incredibly obvious.

Consequence, not stake; and only visible as such in hindsight after any other possible consequences or outcomes have been somehow eliminated.

So Thief A is in lock-picking class with his guildmaster. They're practicing picking a lock.

Thief B is in a dark alley about 20 feet from a well-lit street. It's late at night, but there may still be people about, certainly the watch is still on patrol. There's a light rain, but it's only a little more than a drizzle. Thief B is trying to pick the lock of a merchant's office so he can steal some documents for a rival merchant. He'll also see if there's anything of value that can be taken.

According to you, these situations are identical?

No, in that the surrounding conditions will be changing the odds of success.

Yes in that the actual task resolution still comes down to a binary succeed-fail on whether the lock is picked or not; and also in that the immediate stakes - whether or not the lock is opened - are the same.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You don't need to live in one-second intervals. You just need to live.

Not every lock is going to be super important.

Then maybe not every lockpicking needs to be the result of a roll?