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

[Lanefan]

Maybe a better turn of phrase right from the start would have been "make the characters' lives exciting" instead of "make the characters' lives not boring".

 

[TwoSix]

Doesn't it make far more sense that the that the character is going to do what it can to achieve its goals and "emerge triumphant" while taking the path of least resistance to do so?

Doing things that make sense isn't the goal. The goal is to craft an interesting story. It's hard to create an interesting story around a character who always makes the most rational, pragmatic decision possible.

I mean, you tell anecdotes about your characters, or others in your group, making crazy decisions all the time. Why wouldn't you want a system that encourages you to play how you want to play already?

 

[AlViking]

I asked why it feels different to you. That was a genuine question.

Why does helping to make the world make it feel less real or immersive to you?

I thought I did answer. I want to inhabit my character, experience the world as my character would. I don't want to switch lanes into a different mode of thinking because to me switching from character to world builder is a different mode. The exception is is the GM asks me something about my character's background because then I'm thinking through what important memories and events shaped who they've become.

I hit this lane switching thing once when my wife was DMing - we have a bit of overlap on our shared world now and then and one of my old characters had retired from adventuring and become an NPC teacher. There was a point where she asked me to handle a conversation from the NPC teacher to another player's character who was a student (it was on a topic I was familiar with from our discussions and previous campaigns). So I had to break character from the one I had been playing, put myself into the mindset of my old character and then roleplay that NPC. After the game I told her never to do that again, at least not without checking with me first. But even then I'd probably say no.

When I'm playing a character, the closest I can explain it that I'm method acting. I'm doing my best to become that character. It that's not clear enough, all I can say is that I don't like breaking character to help design the world.

 

[AlViking]

Doing things that make sense isn't the goal. The goal is to craft an interesting story. It's hard to create an interesting story around a character who always makes the most rational, pragmatic decision possible.

I mean, you tell anecdotes about your characters, or others in your group, making crazy decisions all the time. Why wouldn't you want a system that encourages you to play how you want to play already?

Since their characters and others in their group are already making crazy decisions all the time why would they need a system to encourage them to play how they already play?

 

[Faolyn]

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.

If you succeed at picking a lock, your pick grabs the pins or whatever and moves them correctly. If you fail, its because your pick didn't grab the pins or whatever correctly. Your lock isn't waving around in air because there's very little room in that lock. Your pick hitting things it shouldn't--the other parts of the lock. It's a lot of metal against metal. That's going to make more noise because you're fishing around in a tight space than if you had found the right part and twisted it quickly.

Also, medieval locks were more like padlocks or sliding bolts, pull locks, or spring locks. Or were actually bars that had to be lifted. All of these things have a lot of potential for loud clickiness. Deadbolts weren't invented until the late 19th century. Of course, that's the real world, and dwarfs or gnomes or goblins could have invented deadbolts in a fantasy world.

The History of Locks (Part One): Invention

Proverbially, invention is the daughter of necessity. When the need arises, an invention is sought that will solve a problem and satisfy the need. T

www.ptlockandsafe.co.uk

History of Locks (Part Two): Medieval Innovations

Locks have a long and fascinating history. A couple of months ago, we blogged about the invention of locks and talked about how the development of s

www.ptlockandsafe.co.uk

historicallocks.com

Historical locks

www.historicallocks.com

You want a silent lock? It would a rope tied around the door handles. Then you just have to maneuver a thin piece of sharp metal between two heavy slabs of wood to cut the rope.

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.

If lockpicking and stealth have nothing to do with each other, then why assume that lockpicking is particularly quiet at all? After all, a quick search online will tell you that picking locks does make noise, even quite a bit of it.

Which has nothing to do with the cook.

That's right. This is an alternate possibility if you don't want to use the cook.

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

If the PC doesn't open the door, then use a different possibility.

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

That's fine. That's what fail forward does. It moves the game forward. The PC failed, or partially succeeded, but as a result, there's now going to be a hunt for a burglar when they'd hoped that nobody would have noticed the crime until it was too late.

(And if the PC didn't express a hope that nobody would notice the crime, then you use a different possibility.)

All you're doing is adding things to the fiction not in the rules

Which is something that all GMs do.

that only apply if the check fails in order to justify your decision as GM to have a screaming cook.

And as I and others have said ten thousand times, the cook is one possibility. From a mediocre blog post. You are not required to use a cook, screaming, or non-screaming, at all.

I mean, if you can't think of something other than a cook, that's your issue, not mine.

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.

I haven't GMed D&D for a while; I've been running PbtA. Give me a D&D-style skill check and I'll illustrate it for you.

 

[Faolyn]

When one takes these two passages and combines them:

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.

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.


It reads like the GM's job is to provide struggle and adversity without being unfair, which makes sense; but then also reads as though the players are expected to have their PCs embrace this adversity with open arms rather than try to avoid or minimize it, which tells me I-as-player am expected to play my character as an idiot with limited or no sense of (emotional or physical) self-preservation. I mean sure, it's a game about high school and high-schoolers aren't always known for their stupendous wisdom; but even they learn fast enough that "once bitten, twice shy" is a useful way to proceed.

Doesn't it make far more sense that the that the character is going to do what it can to achieve its goals and "emerge triumphant" while taking the path of least resistance to do so?

No. You're supposed to play your character not as an idiot, but as someone who acts like a normal person does.

D&D PCs do not act like normal people. They act like people who expect terrible things to happen to them at any moment for no good reason--because that reason is actually "the GM wanted to and the players want to kill things." By any way you look at it, D&D PCs are paranoid, skittish, sociopathic, violent, and frequently act in lolrandom ways. And I'm talking about the PCs who are actually good or neutral aligned, not actively evil. I cannot believe how many stories I've heard about evil PCs whose players seem to think that they're playing FATAL, not D&D.

In Monsterhearts, you're both a hormonal teenager and a monster--and not only that, but a type of monster that has to be around other people (e.g., vampires gotta eat). Also, the players are expected to actually partake in the game. You can't play the type of teenager who does nothing but sit in their room playing video games or reading, even if its the most logical thing. You have to actually go and be part of the game as a whole and interact with the other players.

As a note, I haven't played Monsterhearts--not really my jam--but I am playing in Masks, and that's the same thing except we're superheroes. We have to go forth and be supers because that's what the game is about. And we very much know better than the adults do.

 

[AlViking]

If you succeed at picking a lock, your pick grabs the pins or whatever and moves them correctly. If you fail, its because your pick didn't grab the pins or whatever correctly. Your lock isn't waving around in air because there's very little room in that lock. Your pick hitting things it shouldn't--the other parts of the lock. It's a lot of metal against metal. That's going to make more noise because you're fishing around in a tight space than if you had found the right part and twisted it quickly.

Also, medieval locks were more like padlocks or sliding bolts, pull locks, or spring locks. Or were actually bars that had to be lifted. All of these things have a lot of potential for loud clickiness. Deadbolts weren't invented until the late 19th century. Of course, that's the real world, and dwarfs or gnomes or goblins could have invented deadbolts in a fantasy world.

The History of Locks (Part One): Invention

Proverbially, invention is the daughter of necessity. When the need arises, an invention is sought that will solve a problem and satisfy the need. T

www.ptlockandsafe.co.uk

History of Locks (Part Two): Medieval Innovations

Locks have a long and fascinating history. A couple of months ago, we blogged about the invention of locks and talked about how the development of s

www.ptlockandsafe.co.uk

historicallocks.com

Historical locks

www.historicallocks.com

You want a silent lock? It would a rope tied around the door handles. Then you just have to maneuver a thin piece of sharp metal between two heavy slabs of wood to cut the rope.


If lockpicking and stealth have nothing to do with each other, then why assume that lockpicking is particularly quiet at all? After all, a quick search online will tell you that picking locks does make noise, even quite a bit of it.

If no lock can be unlocked silently then success or failure doesn't matter. Seems like success would be noisier because you were successful at getting things to move around. But it's still adding to the fiction some result just to justify your decision to add a complication. Just like the example I quoted added the cook. You might as well add that on a failure the character accidentally knocked over a flower pot which crashed to the ground, it's just as logical.

That's right. This is an alternate possibility if you don't want to use the cook.


If the PC doesn't open the door, then use a different possibility.


That's fine. That's what fail forward does. It moves the game forward. The PC failed, or partially succeeded, but as a result, there's now going to be a hunt for a burglar when they'd hoped that nobody would have noticed the crime until it was too late.

I just don't see a reason for the GM to force the "excitement". If they can't get the door open they likely had other options and decided the door was the safest. Now they have to consider other options.

(And if the PC didn't express a hope that nobody would notice the crime, then you use a different possibility.)

I sincerely doubt the character would ever hope to be noticed unless it was part of a scam.

Which is something that all GMs do.


And as I and others have said ten thousand times, the cook is one possibility. From a mediocre blog post. You are not required to use a cook, screaming, or non-screaming, at all.

I mean, if you can't think of something other than a cook, that's your issue, not mine.

So it's my issue that you won't provide a better example?

I haven't GMed D&D for a while; I've been running PbtA. Give me a D&D-style skill check and I'll illustrate it for you.

Off the top of my head? Based on a session I had except I added a failure or two

1. There's a special event by invite only. There are guards at the gate and the characters fail to convince the guards to let them in.
2. They get into the event. They're trying to get into a back room which they believe has secret documents. There are rumors that there's a secret servant's passage so they can sneak back to it without attracting attention but they can't find it.
3. They manage to get into the room and there is indeed a secret document but it's encoded and they can't interpret it. They can't take the document with them because the enemy will just change their plan if the document is missing. They only have a few moments before being discovered so they can't copy the entire document.
4. The characters are trying to leave the event without being noticed but failed their stealth or deception checks (players chose which one to try). One of the guests recognizes them and is about to raise the alarm. The characters want to avoid a fight if at all possible but it seems inevitable.

What happens?

Spoiler: What would likely have happened in my game if all their checks had failed

1. They were trying to bluff their way in and it didn't work. There would have been other ways to get in but instead they told the guards the truth, because this was a persuasion check instead of a deception check and because in-world the guards did not know what was going on so I allowed it.
2. They took a different approach, one character caused a distraction so they could sneak someone back. Unfortunately it also split the party.
3. They copied what they could, getting only partial information when they studied it later.
4. Roll for initiative.

In other cases it's much simpler and the number of examples are as numerous as there are skills. You have knowledge check such as history or religion. Physical checks from athletics or acrobatics to stealth or sleight of hand to open a lock. If any of those things fail I feel no need to do anything other than tell them that it didn't work.

 

[AlViking]

No. You're supposed to play your character not as an idiot, but as someone who acts like a normal person does.

D&D PCs do not act like normal people. They act like people who expect terrible things to happen to them at any moment for no good reason--because that reason is actually "the GM wanted to and the players want to kill things." By any way you look at it, D&D PCs are paranoid, skittish, sociopathic, violent, and frequently act in lolrandom ways. And I'm talking about the PCs who are actually good or neutral aligned, not actively evil. I cannot believe how many stories I've heard about evil PCs whose players seem to think that they're playing FATAL, not D&D.

That has rarely been my experience. If you hear about them it's likely been because they're such shocking outliers to the way the game is normally played. Yes, D&D regularly puts characters into dangerous situations but in my games? In my games it's because the characters want to be big damn heroes who run towards danger because they're the ones best equipped to deal with it.

 

[zakael19]

And people in general tend feel more connected to things that they create or helped create. Ask anyone who created something--anything. Why does it feel different to you when it's in an RPG?

It’s so interesting to me to see this continued emphasis on “it’s more immersive to look to the authority (GM) for all details not from my vetted backstory” when like every game coming out rn is tending further towards creating a collaborative tone and table as the default. I think there’s definitely a continuum of personal ability to engage collaboratively full time from different people, but those of mine who hit the wall a bit seem to generally enjoy even just adding some tidbits on to ideas we throw out there.

 

[clearstream]

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?

I didn't know that instigators of fail forward literally connected it with making play "not boring". (Which rather begs the question: was their play until then boring!?) I thought that framing came up just in this thread... with an unfortunate and unintentional implication.

Looking at discussion on stackexchange, the earliest uses frame it as "complication that pushes the story in another direction" and the like. Can you point to the reference you are thinking of?