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

[Gimby]

So the cook(not maid) would be up at 2:30am for some reason, but wouldn't be around to serve and prepare breakfast, lunch or dinner because they shouldn't be seen?

Depending on the household, certainly. The cook may well not be involved in serving the food at all, that may well be the job of other servants.

 

[FrogReaver]

Folks just so you know, bad logic bugs me even when my "team" uses it. I will point it out even if I agree with the overall position of the person using the bad logic.

Me too. Though it might be worse when others accuse of bad logic when it isn’t

 

[Campbell]

So, stuff that has not been established (if a cook is around close by) can neither be diegetic or not. The characters making noise trying to break in (due to a failure) and encountering a cook who was nearby (due to a GM decision to move the game forward in a way they find compelling) follows from what has been established but introduces new elements (with the GM making a call about the presence of a cook because they feel that adds something to the scene).

So, we have an C which requires both A and B to be true - A + B => C. Even if B is decided by a GM motivated by making the lives of the player characters not boring A is still a necessary component that leads to C. Not liking how B was decided by the GM does not make A and C disconnected.

If you don't have an agenda as GM that includes making the character lives' not boring you should not use fail forward. But to imply that people who use it are playing games with disconnected or disjointed fiction is not cool and not accurate. But it's the agenda, not the mechanic that supports it you likely have the actual problem with.

The problem with the mechanic causes the cook to exist is two-fold from my perspective. First it presents a view where the GM has no agency in how things go, but the way fail forward is expressed is entirely on the GM. The cook is there because they made a decision about what sort of complication of all available ones was the most compelling (furthermore in trad implementations it's usually on them to invoke fail forward itself). The other is that like for stuff not established whether something exists or not is up in the air.

I get people might favor or not favor particular GM agendas or principles in the play they prefer but pointing at their set as more real or authentic when it's really about particular aesthetic preferences we have is like not cool. There are ways to express stuff is not for you without trying to make it look ridiculous by taking a mechanic out of its usual context.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The cook only exists because of a failed roll that has no diegetic reason. I'm not going to argue about it any more. It's pointless because you've shown that you will never accept that anyone would care.

I disagree. Had the player declared that the PC do some different thing, then this roll would not have happened. It's entirely diegetic! That's the whole point! I think the actual reasons why some gamers dislike this kind of thing has much more to do with the fact that it tends to blur the traditional lines between player and GM authority.

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree. Had the player declared that the PC do some different thing, then this roll would not have happened. It's entirely diegetic! That's the whole point!

Umm… that’s not what makes something diegetic?

I think the actual reasons why some gamers dislike this kind of thing has much more to do with the fact that it tends to blur the traditional lines between player and GM authority.

When their given reasons aren’t listened to at all I can see how one could stick with that preconceived idea.

 

[The Firebird]

We've talked a lot about simulationism. But really I think it grates on me the most from the gamist perspective. If I as a player can introduce new things into the fiction that help my PC win, or if complications that I couldn't have planned for occur to help my PC lose, then it is harder for me to feel like I am playing a game with real stakes.

---

A thesis:

PC and player are not identical. But to the extent that I feel I as a player am inhabiting, am acting, as an individual in the world, it is better for the distinction to be as small as possible.

There is a larger distinction when player and PC knowledge differ more. E.g., I as a player know I just set the stakes for the runes, but the PC doesn't know. I as a player know the cook appeared because of a 7-9, but the PC doesn't.

Additionally: this contrast is more clearly expressed when the players rolls are determining aspects of the world (presence of cook, nature of runes) than the characters interactions with the world (arrow hits orc).

---

Cases: the wandering monster--the player's roll has no bearing on the existence of the monster, so PC/player distinction is minimal.

The player saying--"my PC says those guys use human ears". Moderate PC/player distinction. If this is done primarily for flavor it doesn't seem that bad imo, but if done often can get old. If the player introduces lore to help their PC win it becomes a hard no.

 

[AlViking]

I disagree. Had the player declared that the PC do some different thing, then this roll would not have happened. It's entirely diegetic! That's the whole point! I think the actual reasons why some gamers dislike this kind of thing has much more to do with the fact that it tends to blur the traditional lines between player and GM authority.

The only declared action I am making a judgement call on in the scenario is a sleight of hand check to open the lock. Anything else that the player declares as their action will be judged based on the actions declared.

As always, I'm just talking about my preferred methodology and is not a reflection on how anyone else wants to run their game.

 

[Faolyn]

The cook only exists because of a failed roll that has no diegetic reason. I'm not going to argue about it any more. It's pointless because you've shown that you will never accept that anyone would care.

It's been pointed out to you multiple times that this was a single example that happens to be pretty bad. So why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[AlViking]

It's been pointed out to you multiple times that this was a single example that happens to be pretty bad. So why do you keep bringing it up?

I didn't. The conversation started with someone complaining about the quantum cook again.

 

[Faolyn]

What Harper says only establishes an "ought" on the premise that it is accepted as true. It's not self-grouding.

Furthermore, as I've already pointed out in this thread, reading that passage of Harper's in disregard of the rest of what he says, and of the AW rulebook, is leading some posters into dogmatic assertions that are not true of Apocalypse World.

As one example, the psychic maelstrom - p 113 of the AW rulebook says that:

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.​

This feeds into an important point. Harper (together with Vincent Baker) is well aware of the tension between X is in charge of the world and Y is in charge of Z's thoughts, beliefs and memories of the world, given that veridical beliefs and memories imply truths about things other than the person whose memories they are.

Harper gives this example, and explains how it works within the Apocalypse World framework:

Sometimes, the players say things that get very close to the line. Usually this happens when the MC asks a leading question.​

​

MC: "Nero, what do the slave traders use for barter?"​

Player: "Oh man, those fuckers? They use human ears."​

​

That's a case of the player authoring part of the world outside their character, however -- and this is critical -- they do it from within their character's experience and frame of reference. When Nero answers that question, he's telling something he knows about the world.​

So it's actually not as simple as saying "The GM is in charge of the world". Rather, the GM gets to decide when to bring in player contributions (by asking questions) and gets to decide how to bring in player contributions (by asking about PC knowledge, experience, etc). This is consistent with what is said on p 109 of the rulebook:

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.​

This shows how overly simplistic it is for someone to say that, in AW, "The GM is in charge of the world". And it's doubly simplistic, and absurd, to use that sort of wording to beat other posters over the head for playing RPGs which don't grant the GM exclusive authority over backstory.

This is incorrect.

The MC controls the psychic maelstrom. What form it takes, how and where (and if) it moves. How strong it is. How common it is for people to be able to tap into it.

The player controls their PC's personal experience with it. They control their PC's senses, not the maelstrom itself.

As an example, in this game, the maelstrom is like constant radio signals. One player says they always hear static but can sometimes snatch useful bits of coherent sound out of it. Another player says they have to work hard to tune their own mind, but have access to dozens of clear stations when they successfully do so.