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

[Maxperson]

Because when they came up with the idea they picked a phrase that made sense to them and weren’t worried about pedants discussing it online years later?

If it made sense to them that PCs who already didn't have boring lives needed that phrase and technique in order to not have boring lives, there was something wrong with their understanding of language and RPGs. That phrase is nonsense in the context of RPGs where the characters never have boring lives anyway.

These designers and article writers need to take some time and think through the names they come up with, because they have caused a ton of disruption due to their bad choices.

 

[AlViking]

If it made sense to them that PCs who already didn't have boring lives needed that phrase and technique in order to not have boring lives, there was something wrong with their understanding of language and RPGs. That phrase is nonsense in the context of RPGs where the characters never have boring lives anyway.

These designers and article writers need to take some time and think through the names they come up with, because they have caused a ton of disruption due to their bad choices.

The clear implication is that other games (e.g. D&D) where the GM doesn't take an active roll to ensure the players aren't bored are in fact boring.

 

[Campbell]

In make the characters' lives not boring the important bit is the characters' lives bit is crucial. It's about centering character and immediate situation in your decisions when you pick your next move. Sure, we can have interesting and fun games that are about things external to the characters - but like that' s not the sort of fun or interesting game this agenda is trying to realize. It means first and foremost we care about these characters and their personal journeys over exploration of the setting.

Here's how Monsterhearts lays it out for players:

Make each main character’s life not boring.

As a player, part of your job is to advocate for your character. But being their advocate doesn’t mean it’s
your job to keep them safe. It’s not. It’s your job to make their life not boring. It’s about figuring out who
they are, what they want, and what they’ll do to get it – even if that exposes them to danger. Your character
can’t emerge triumphant if you aren’t willing to see them through some naughty word.

Unlike some roleplaying games, Monsterhearts doesn’t have an endgame or an explicit goal to shoot for. You are left to determine what it is that your character wants, and pursue that in any way that makes sense to you. Since the default setting is a high school, there are a few goals that nearly everyone is going to have: saving face, gaining friends and social security, figuring out who their enemies are, getting social leverage on others, dumping their pain on other people. If you aren’t sure who your character is, start with those things and build from there. Soon, you’ll likely find yourself embroiled in situations that demand action, and what your character wants will emerge from that.

And how they lay it out for the GM:

Be a fan of the main characters

You share the same agenda as everyone else: make each main character’s life not boring. As the MC, that often means introducing struggle and adversity into their lives. Just remember that your goal is not to thwart them, or to gain some sort of unspoken power over them. The whole reason you’re introducing struggle and adversity is to see how they change under pressure, to watch their brilliance and flaws bubbling up, and to enjoy their story. You’re not here to coddle these characters or to bully them. You’re here to be their fan.

There are multiple ways to realize this specific agenda as a GM, but will manifest in very different playstyles. Our L5R (5E), Infinity and Apocalypse Keys all did it very differently. I'd say Vampire 5E does a good job out of the box reinforcing this sort of front lining of character and situation in its Chronicle Tenants and Lore Sheets. Also, in the why setting design changed.

It's about the character's live not being boring. Not about the game not being boring. It's staking a claim that we care about the creative experience of placing the characters under pressure and finding out who they are (and we will make decisions as players and GMs to get there).

 

[AlViking]

In make the characters' lives not boring the important bit is the characters' lives bit is crucial. It's about centering character and immediate situation in your decisions when you pick your next move. Sure, we can have interesting and fun games that are about things external to the characters - but like that' s not the sort of fun or interesting game this agenda is trying to realize. It means first and foremost we care about these characters and their personal journeys over exploration of the setting.

Here's how Monsterhearts lays it out for players:


And how they lay it out for the GM:


There are multiple ways to realize this specific agenda as a GM, but will manifest in very different playstyles. Our L5R (5E), Infinity and Apocalypse Keys all did it very differently. I'd say Vampire 5E does a good job out of the box reinforcing this sort of front lining of character and situation in its Chronicle Tenants and Lore Sheets. Also, in the why setting design changed.

It's about the character's live not being boring. Not about the game not being boring. It's staking a claim that we care about the creative experience of placing the characters under pressure and finding out who they are (and we will make decisions as players and GMs to get there).

I don't see how you can make the game not boring and the character's lives boring. To put it another way, if the players are engaged and having fun what difference does it make? I don't really care too much but I've seen so many times where these phrases are repeated as if they have some deeper meaning and I just don't see it. Of course I don't want my players to be bored, I just do that by giving them opportunities for their characters to move the action forward and by responding to their declared actions and words in interesting ways. I don't have have a bumper sticker like adage like "Be fans of your players" because wanting my players to have fun is just kind of a given.

What people are really trying to say as far as I can tell is that in some games it's the GM's job to push the narrative forward as opposed to my approach of giving them enough threads to follow that they can always latch on to something they find interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

In make the characters' lives not boring the important bit is the characters' lives bit is crucial. It's about centering character and immediate situation in your decisions when you pick your next move. Sure, we can have interesting and fun games that are about things external to the characters - but like that' s not the sort of fun or interesting game this agenda is trying to realize. It means first and foremost we care about these characters and their personal journeys over exploration of the setting.

Here's how Monsterhearts lays it out for players:


And how they lay it out for the GM:


There are multiple ways to realize this specific agenda as a GM, but will manifest in very different playstyles. Our L5R (5E), Infinity and Apocalypse Keys all did it very differently. I'd say Vampire 5E does a good job out of the box reinforcing this sort of front lining of character and situation in its Chronicle Tenants and Lore Sheets. Also, in the why setting design changed.

It's about the character's live not being boring. Not about the game not being boring. It's staking a claim that we care about the creative experience of placing the characters under pressure and finding out who they are (and we will make decisions as players and GMs to get there).

We understand the mechanic. It's a nonsense phrase when applied to RPGs, since characters in RPGs already don't have boring lives. They flubbed it when they picked the name for the mechanic.

Beyond that flub, the implication when applied in discussions about other games, is that if it isn't done that that way, the lives of the characters in those games are boring.

 

[Faolyn]

That's just it - the cook should not be in any way related to the lock picking!

Two unrelated binary options giving four possible outcomes:

Pick succeeds, cook present
Pick fails, cook present
Pick succeeds, cook absent
Pick fails, cook absent

You're the one who keeps trying to tie these two independent things together and some of us just ain't gonna buy it no matter what sales technique you try.

There's been some other examples where the "fail forward" (still think it's a stupid term) results have IMO been quite well related to the task being attempted. A failed climb where the climber gets stuck and now the rest of the group have to figure out how to get her back down safely. A failed attempt to bribe the gate guards sees them arrest the bribing PC and put him in the stocks.

But picking a lock somehow generating a cook where there wouldn't have been one otherwise - yeah, that's unrelated. That there might be a cook there isn't completely out of line given the fiction, but IMO her presence or absence has to be determined independently of the pick-locks attempt (and ideally before the locks roll is even made).

Y'all keep forgetting what the original blog post actually said: the cook screams on a failed lockpick. So it actually works like this:

• Pick succeeds, cook present, doesn't scream: the cook doesn't notice the PC because they opened the lock smoothly enough to remain undetected.
• Pick fails, cook present, screams: the PC made enough noise that the cook noticed them and screamed.

I fail to see how either of these are actually independent. Do you assume that lockpicking always makes a lot of noise, no matter whether it succeeded or failed? Do you assume that lockpicking is covered under stealth, so that a high stealth roll means that the lockpicking makes minimal noise, no matter whether the lock fails or not?

Because if either of the above are true, then as we have said, there are many, many different options that do not involve a cook in either way. Three more examples:

• The PC failed because the locks in this house have atypical innards (not obvious unless the PCs have X-ray vision), the PC failed to understand what those innards are like (it was chance, not skill, that helped them), and will now have a penalty to their lockpicking rolls in this house.
• The PC opened the door but not all the way, so it re-locked itself when it closed (did the PC say they were propping it open?), so to leave by this door, they'll have to re-pick the lock. (Of course, this would be realistic in a world without fire codes anyway.)
• The PC broke the lock. It will be obvious to anyone who looks that someone broke in, thus foiling the PC's plan on getting in and out without being noticed. (It's a medieval fantasy lock on a kitchen door; it's not likely to be made of high-quality materials.)

So for the love of small fuzzy things, please, people, stop harping about the stupid cook!

 

[Enrahim]

I guess I'm not really clear on why it matters whether something-or-other fits some abstract notion of "fail forward"?

Well it sort of has mattered. My impression is that basically the starting point of most of this thread was someone advertising such an abstract notion of "fail forward" disconnected from any existing rulesystem. My guess is that about 50% of this thread by now has in one way or another been people fueling into the confusion of everyone thinking everyone know what we are talking about, while it start to seem to me like noone (including me) actually have had any proper understanding about what we have tried to talk about..

I think sorting out this confusion might be useful..

 

[AlViking]

Y'all keep forgetting what the original blog post actually said: the cook screams on a failed lockpick. So it actually works like this:

• Pick succeeds, cook present, doesn't scream: the cook doesn't notice the PC because they opened the lock smoothly enough to remain undetected.
• Pick fails, cook present, screams: the PC made enough noise that the cook noticed them and screamed.

I don't assume a failed check makes more noise and see no in-world reason to assume that. It should make less noise if it's the equivalent of a deadbolt because there's less moving parts.

I fail to see how either of these are actually independent. Do you assume that lockpicking always makes a lot of noise, no matter whether it succeeded or failed? Do you assume that lockpicking is covered under stealth, so that a high stealth roll means that the lockpicking makes minimal noise, no matter whether the lock fails or not?

You are inventing something not mentioned in the rules (and that I don't think makes sense in the real world either) to make it work.

Because if either of the above are true, then as we have said, there are many, many different options that do not involve a cook in either way. Three more examples:

• The PC failed because the locks in this house have atypical innards (not obvious unless the PCs have X-ray vision), the PC failed to understand what those innards are like (it was chance, not skill, that helped them), and will now have a penalty to their lockpicking rolls in this house.

Which has nothing to do with the cook.

• The PC opened the door but not all the way, so it re-locked itself when it closed (did the PC say they were propping it open?), so to leave by this door, they'll have to re-pick the lock. (Of course, this would be realistic in a world without fire codes anyway.)

Assumes the character opens the door, I don't assume actions for the players

• The PC broke the lock. It will be obvious to anyone who looks that someone broke in, thus foiling the PC's plan on getting in and out without being noticed. (It's a medieval fantasy lock on a kitchen door; it's not likely to be made of high-quality materials.)

Sure, later on there's evidence of an attempted break-in. It doesn't affect anything in the moment.

So for the love of small fuzzy things, please, people, stop harping about the stupid cook!

All you're doing is adding things to the fiction not in the rules that only apply if the check fails in order to justify your decision as GM to have a screaming cook.

If you have a better example please provide one from a recent game. Or a dozen examples, it shouldn't be hard since you do this all the time.

 

[Enrahim]

Y'all keep forgetting what the original blog post actually said: the cook screams on a failed lockpick. So it actually works like this:

• Pick succeeds, cook present, doesn't scream: the cook doesn't notice the PC because they opened the lock smoothly enough to remain undetected.
• Pick fails, cook present, screams: the PC made enough noise that the cook noticed them and screamed.

That is the thing. The blog post failed to specify this. Hence someone pointed out that the scenario where the people at the table knew the cook would not be arround at all (empty kitchen) could be a possible interpretation of the example, and that to them this particular situation would be deeply problematic.

This effort to fix the example has been done numerous times in this thread, and it completely misses the point.

 

[AlViking]

That is the thing. The blog post failed to specify this. Hence someone pointed out that the scenario where the people atvthe table knew the cook would not be arround at all (empty kitchen) could be a possible interpretation of the example, and that to them this particular situation would be deeply problematic.

This effort to fix the example has been done numerous times in this thread, and it completely misses the point.

The exact wording from Failing Forward – RPG Concepts

Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost. So you get into the house, but you startle a cook who screams. Now your plan of sneaking around the house slowly and avoiding all the guards is shot. You’re in the house, so you better use your opportunity, but this is going to be more of a smash and grab than a cat burglary.​

​

There's no indication the cook would have been there if the check had succeeded and, in fact, it would make no sense if they were. If this is a bad example then it should not be hard to provide a good one.