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

[EzekielRaiden]

If my character does something stupid or unwise it's because their ability score says they're stupid or unwise. Frequently because they're just completely ignorant. But I'm not doing it to create drama, I'm doing it because it makes sense for my character and how I think they would react given their point of view, experiences and capabilities.

I do have a player though who will do stuff just to cause drama. It's annoying, almost to the point where I don't want to include them in the next campaign.

The problem is, you're conflating something completely unrelated, and usually really, really crappy, with the thing that was being described originally.

"Creating drama" almost always means "doing a jerk thing to the other characters" or "doing a jerk thing to NPCs which will have almost immediate negative consequences for the party". I despise "creating drama". Probably more than you do, if you tolerate someone at your table at all. They'd have gotten a gentle reminder the first time. The second time, they'd have gotten a firm reminder. The third, they would be out and I would not hesitate to tell them precisely why they won't ever be welcome at my table again.

That's not what is being discussed, at least not at the root here. What's being discussed is a system that (a) lays out the things a character values or cares about or has dedicated themselves to (etc., etc.), and then (b) puts those characters in situations where their commitments are put to the test. As C.S. Lewis put it, "...courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality." Yes, that is "drama" in the literary sense. It is not "drama" in the way most people use the word casually today, which is closer to "stirring $#!+ between people merely to stir $#!+", what would have been called "melodrama" in years past.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Doing things that make sense isn't your goal.

So you play characters that are perfect logic-engine characters that--as noted--always make the most logical and pragmatic decision possible?

 

[pemerton]

LOL. The last time I just checked and the last time I used the term unconnected was nearly a month ago. So who is continuing to bang that drum?

I've answered my logic on this likely dozens of times now. I think the only relation is the GM using fail forward.

I just don't see a direct in-world cause and effect in most examples of fail forward.

When doors are unexpectedly opened by burglars, the people behind them may get startled. Good burglars are good at avoiding this (by dint of timing, stealth, etc). Bad or unlucky burglars less so.

Those are all true generalisations - relations - that obtain in the real world, not just in the imaginations of some RPGers.

 

[The Firebird]

When doors are unexpectedly opened by burglars, the people behind them may get startled. Good burglars are good at avoiding this (by dint of timing, stealth, etc). Bad or unlucky burglars less so.

Those are all true generalisations - relations - that obtain in the real world, not just in the imaginations of some RPGers.

For someone with such an encyclopedic recall of Edwards, of the Forge theory and definitions, for a dozen actual play examples, it is disappointing to see such a poor grasp of what your interlocutors think.

 

[Lanefan]

I just note how you don't distinguish the interests of the player and the character here.

Quite intentionally so, as in theory character interests and player interests are largely aligned - unless the player is intentionally playing a gonzo character.

Part of "advocating for your character" is, in my view anyway, doing what has to be done (and whatever the game lets you do) to keep the character going even while the setting is doing everything it can to make its life miserable or even kill it. This advocacy sometimes involves pushing the rules envelope to see what's allowed, a good example of which is the player who chose high nobility as a background specifically because of its built-in advantages (which actually doesn't even push the envelope; it's outright allowed, so why not do it?).

And sure, I'll sometimes play gonzo idiots who don't have much thought for self-preservation, in which case the advocacy piece turns toward striving for sheer entertainment value; but that's an intentional choice on my part and I want it to remain that: my choice, rather than the system or table forcing me to go one way or the other.

 

[Lanefan]

For example, when I create a world as the GM, I do not feel immersed as any character.

Occasionally, I do; to the point that were I a better novelist (as in, were I one at all) I could write books telling the stories around certain NPCs and how they got to be what-where they are by the time the campaign (potentially) interacts with them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you play characters that are perfect logic-engine characters that--as noted--always make the most logical and pragmatic decision possible?

I generally want the world and the characters in it to make logical sense, yes. If they appear not to, there's always a reason. Just like real life.

 

[pemerton]

And as I addressed, it's a very bad term. The characters' lives won't be boring whether you do that or not. Why not use a term that's accurate like, "Make the moment interesting" since it's all about what's happening in that moment and has nothing to do with rescuing the characters from a life of boredom?

Why is it a bad term? Has anyone who sat down to GM Apocalypse World ever been confused or led astray by it?

Here is the parallel instruction to Burning Wheel GMs (found under the instructions on the role of the GM in Revised, Gold and Gold Revised):

Most important, the GM is responsible for introducing complications to the story and consequences to the players' choices. . . . Once play begins, as players choose their path, it is the GM's job to meaningfully inject resonant ramifications into play.​

@Campbell's point, with which I 100% agree, is that "fail forward" is a technique that sits within a broader approach to GMing. The Burning Wheel instructions, and Apocalypse World's "Make the players’ characters’ lives not boring", are components of such a broader approach.

Whereas if, say, one is adopting the approach to GMing set out in Gygax's rulebooks - roughly, prepare your material and then present it in neutral fashion - "fail forward" does not belong.

When you describe your approach this way . . .

I'm not going to prepare stuff that they would find boring.

. . . it seems to me that you are closer to the Gygax approach than the AW or BW approach. Their advice, and their techniques, are probably not relevant to you.

Don't try to tell me that I'm doing X wrong where X can mean multiple different things and you want it to mean how Y game uses it when we are discussing Z game.

In case you missed it, here is the post I made about the constraint of being faithful, or not, in one's portrayal of a character:

As for the difference between player-authored conflict across a moral line and following along with the workings of the system to reach system-dictated conclusions, I can't do better than (again) adduce the difference between Pendragon and something like The Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel. In Pendragon, the system generates changes in the traits, and the traits then (help) shape how the player is to play their PC. The traits are a type of "model" of the PC.

Whereas in TRoS or BW, the player establishes their Spiritual Attributes or Beliefs based on their own priorities, and is able to control how they change and how they impact play. For instance, BW expects Beliefs to be broken as much as adhered to, and has a "reward system" for both possibilities. The system doesn't ask the player to faithfully portray their PC, but rather to make a statement by portraying their PC a certain way.

That post was a reply to @FrogReaver. It was explaining a certain sort of play - the sort found in TRoS and Burning Wheel, for instance - by contrasting it with Pendragon. I made the point that, in TRoS and BW, the player is not called upon to faithfully portray their PC.

That was not a statement about your RPGing. I was not discussing you. I was not discussing "game Z", whatever game that is. I was not telling you that you are doing anything wrong.

I'm saying that 1) those games are wrong if they attempt to appropriate a term for their exclusive use, and 2) other people are wrong when they say that we can't be faithful to our portrayals of character.

I can assure that the rulebooks for TRoS, and BW, and Pendragon, say nothing about whether or not you, @Maxperson, have ever been faithful, or not, in your portrayals of character.

To reiterate: when I play Burning Wheel, I am not expected to faithfully portray my PC. Fidelity to some prior conception is not part of the job description. I am expected to make a statement by portraying my PC a certain way.

The term isn't owned by those games. Faithful has meaning as a word. I can be faithful to my character whether it's to stuff I have made up in my head, stuff I've told the players about, or a combination of that.

A lot of these terms are lame, because some of them end up being derogatory when speaking about other playstyles, and some of them attempt to redefine terms that are commonly used to mean other things in the industry, and then these bad terms get used to beat people over the head with and tell people they are doing it wrong(see being faithful to your character) in other games, which is One True Wayism.

The creators need to use terms that more accurate and neutral, and those using them need to keep them confined only to the game that uses them and not try to apply them anywhere else, except in the context of personal use. ie stating that you use X idea from Y game in Z game because it works for you.

I once again ask you to re-read my post. Where is it saying any of these things you are complaining about?

As far as I can tell, from your various posts that I have quoted in this post, you put a lot of emphasis on fidelity: GM fidelity to prepared setting; player fidelity to a prior conception of the character.

For that reason, the sorts of techniques found in RPGs like AW, BW and TRoS are probably not all that relevant to you.

 

[pemerton]

You do realize you used the term first to define narrativist?
You do realize I'm asking questions so I can understand what you mean by the term?

Yes. And I've given you some examples, but you're contesting them. For instance, you seem to think that an hour of play managing logistics and inventory can be an example of rising action or rising conflict. To me, that means that maybe you mean something different from those terms than I do?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I generally want the world and the characters in it to make logical sense, yes. If they appear not to, there's always a reason. Just like real life.

I'll note people's reasons for irrational behavior is often amazingly opaque, sometimes even to them.