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

[AlViking]

Okay? Not sure what that has to do with what I said.

You said the atomization of actions is "unnatural". I disagree. It's a different way of handling things but I find it quite natural. If I attempt to hit a ball into a pocket while playing billiards a successful result could mean that I continue my turn or it could mean I win the game if it's the 8 ball. While D&D doesn't generally have levels of failure (I think they may discuss it in the new DMG) failure could mean everything from it is no longer my turn to I scratch so it's ball in hand for my opponent to I lose the game because I was shooting at the 8 ball.

All of those options are handled in a simple and consistent manner and the complexity of billiards doesn't approach the complexity we get in RPGs.

This seems to imply that the world waits for the character to decide what to do next... but I don't know why that would happen.

I don't see why not. The world is still in motion of course, the action taken by the character may be immediately followed by some other event but that other event will have not be triggered by the action taken. Occasionally that event could be interrupted by the action taken if, for example the character successfully closed a portcullis on an approaching enemy.

I would expect that in most RPGs, whether trad or narrativist or whatever other label we could apply, the GM absolutely could narrate something happening after the failed attempt.

Other than it worked or did not? I see no reason for extra narration to be necessary.

Even at its most basic, you'd think any other characters involved in the scene would have an opportunity to act.

Did I say they could not? The character attempted something, it worked or it didn't. If we're in initiative order the character may or may not be able to do something else. If we're not in initiative play continues as normal and it's up to the players to decide what happens next.

And this comes up when? Like, when the PCs are in town? Or when they're in a potentially dangerous location?

Or does that really not matter?

I ask for a roll if the action attempted is uncertain. As we've stated many times. You do know how the game works, right? If an action can be completed given enough time and time is not an issue then the action is automatically successful and there is no need to ask for a roll.

According to you, the two situation have the same stakes.

I still don't care about stakes.

Yet, you describe one as not even worth playing out. This implies that a level of danger being present is also a reason to have a roll.

Because it would be a waste of time.

And as I've said several times... because there have been comparisons to how "nothing happens" is "more realistic"... look at the two situations not as a game, but as something that's really happening. Would you really say that these two thieves are facing the same consequences?

Yes, they are either opening the lock or not. I wouldn't bother playing it out, you were the one who came up with the scenario.

Again, you're reading things that are not there.

I didn't say it's bizarre for people to run a game differently than mine. I said believing that these two thieves are facing the same consequences is what's bizarre.

Because you care about consequences other than whether the lock is unlocked. You bundle the action of picking the lock together with the consequences of what happens after the action. As a GM and referee I do not. Therefore it seems pretty clear that you consider my definition of consequences bizarre.

 

[AlViking]

What I'm really saying is that "nothing happens" is boring.

How long does resolving an action take in your game? How much time with a simple "It doesn't work" take out of your game? Because that's what doesn't make sense to me, dead ends with no other options may be boring, so I don't set up dead ends. Just because a check fails it doesn't mean there are no other options.

 

[Umbran]

I've seen a few like @Faolyn say that not having fail forward or similar is boring. But that seems to presuppose there's no other way to generate non-boring content other than by bundling their generation with the player action resolution system.

Or, if we want to, I dunno, be more gracious in our reading, it suggests that their experience without it has had many boring bits.

How long does resolving an action take in your game? How much time with a simple "It doesn't work" take out of your game? Because that's what doesn't make sense to me, dead ends with no other options may be boring, so I don't set up dead ends. Just because a check fails it doesn't mean there are no other options.

Right. What you all are arguing over for.... hundreds of pages... is whether one general method of making sure there are other options is acceptable, or needs to be taken out and buried in the back yard next to the family hamsters.

Consider the possibility that there are sufficient game masters:

1) who don't make sure there are no dead ends, that some players just like to have a solution written right into the process of play, instead of somewhere in prep where a GM could fail to do it, or

2) who kind of like having it wrapped into the process of play so that they don't have to spend prep-time concerned about it, as the issue will be addressed in play,

to make it a viable design choice.

Really, that's what it all boils down to.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or, if we want to, I dunno, be more gracious in our reading, it suggests that their experience without it has had many boring bits.

I’m sorry but I never disputed he had a boring game. Only that the only solution isn’t fail forward. Maybe be more gracious in your reading of me?

 

[Umbran]

I’m sorry but I never disputed he had a boring game. Only that the only solution isn’t fail forward. Maybe be more gracious in your reading of me?

If you think I was saying you disputed that they had a boring game, you didn't get what we need to be more gracious about.

Look again - are there words that Faolyn uses that explicitly say that the ONLY solution is fail forward? Has anyone actually explicitly said that - the ONLY solution?

Or, is it something you read into what they are saying? If the latter, then being more gracious can get you my reading, rather than yours.

This is not to say that folks on the other side of the argument have not done similarly - this was just a handy example. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with you, personally - you just presented the handy example.

 

[AlViking]

Or, if we want to, I dunno, be more gracious in our reading, it suggests that their experience without it has had many boring bits.



Right. What you all are arguing over for.... hundreds of pages... is whether one general method of making sure there are other options is acceptable, or needs to be taken out and buried in the back yard next to the family hamsters.

Consider the possibility that there are sufficient game masters:

1) who don't make sure there are no dead ends, that some players just like to have a solution written right into the process of play, instead of somewhere in prep where a GM could fail to do it, or

2) who kind of like having it wrapped into the process of play so that they don't have to spend prep-time concerned about it, as the issue will be addressed in play,

to make it a viable design choice.

Really, that's what it all boils down to.

I understand why a dead end is boring, I don't understand why something that is reconciled in a minute or two qualifies as boring. If it really boils down to dead ends are boring then we can talk about that which is what I was attempting to clarify.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you think I was saying you disputed that they had a boring game, you didn't get what we need to be more gracious about.

Look again - are there words that Faolyn uses that explicitly say that the ONLY solution is fail forward? Has anyone actually explicitly said that - the ONLY solution?

Or, is it something you read into what they are saying? If the latter, then being more gracious can get you my reading, rather than yours.

This is not to say that folks on the other side of the argument have not done similarly - this was just a handy example. And, by the way, it has nothing to do with you, personally - you just presented the handy example.

Oh I understood perfectly well what you were doing. I don’t appreciate it either.

 

[Faolyn]

How long does resolving an action take in your game? How much time with a simple "It doesn't work" take out of your game? Because that's what doesn't make sense to me, dead ends with no other options may be boring, so I don't set up dead ends. Just because a check fails it doesn't mean there are no other options.

It''s not a question of how much or how little time it takes. It's a question of the result. "Nothing happens" means that the game just stops because nothing happens. Sure, the PCs can choose to do something else or come up with another method but that's besides the point. Because this isn't real life, no matter how "realistic" GMs may want to make their game. Things happen, generally to the PCs.

But let's turn the question back on you. How much time would a simple "...and something else happens" take out of your game that would actually be wasted time?

See, I've played "nothing happens" for decades. I've GMed that way for decades. With some of my GMs, that still is the only result. But "...and something else happens" is usually more interesting and engaging, and it doesn't take up more time.

But the problem here is that you and some others here are saying "Because I don't need this rule, nobody should need this rule; they should just learn to not set up dead ends" without realizing that fail-forward is teaching them that, by teaching how to have other results besides "nothing happens."

 

[Faolyn]

I’m sorry but I never disputed he had a boring game. Only that the only solution isn’t fail forward. Maybe be more gracious in your reading of me?

Wait, so you assume that because I try not to have "nothing happens" be the result, that means I have a boring game?

 

[AlViking]

It''s not a question of how much or how little time it takes. It's a question of the result. "Nothing happens" means that the game just stops because nothing happens. Sure, the PCs can choose to do something else or come up with another method but that's besides the point. Because this isn't real life, no matter how "realistic" GMs may want to make their game. Things happen, generally to the PCs.

But let's turn the question back on you. How much time would a simple "...and something else happens" take out of your game that would actually be wasted time?

See, I've played "nothing happens" for decades. I've GMed that way for decades. With some of my GMs, that still is the only result. But "...and something else happens" is usually more interesting and engaging, and it doesn't take up more time.

But the problem here is that you and some others here are saying "Because I don't need this rule, nobody should need this rule; they should just learn to not set up dead ends" without realizing that fail-forward is teaching them that, by teaching how to have other results besides "nothing happens."

I've never made any comment on how someone else runs their game. I wanted clarification on whether you were talking about nothing happens or dead ends. On the other hand you were the one who replies to posts on a fairly regular basis where people state "nothing happens" happens on a failure with "Nothing happens is boring.". No explanation, no reason to reply to the person, nothing.

You have a preference. You've explained a couple of times what you do, I've explained why I don't care for tying external events in a way that is not directly caused by the action failure in my game. Meanwhile you randomly respond "Nothing happens is boring" here and there. It sure sounds like "Your game is more boring than mine because you don't do it like I do".