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

[Lanefan]

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

If the character I'm playing has half-decent or better Int and Wis scores (or equivalent) then in theory the character would - if given a choice - often try to find the most logical-pragmatic-safe route.

A couple of my own long-serving characters are like this.

One is a Fighter, engineer* by trade, who despite being put through some ridiculously silly situations during his career still tries to find the logical-pragmatic-safe way of getting things done. His main character flaw is that, particularly in his earlier days, he was as greedy as they come; other than that he's not all that dissimilar in outlook to Ser Davos (the Onion Knight) in GoT.

Another is a Mage, grew up on a farm then spent years in the Legions. She too tries for the logical and-or pragmatic approach, though she's a bit less concerned about the safety of others; she learned long ago that sometimes there are acceptable losses. Her main flaw is one of impatience, which might prove a real problem in the bureaucratic faux-Roman realm she one day hopes to rule.

* - he started out as the engineer found in the basement of A2 Slavers' Stockade.

 

[pemerton]

I can't tell if this is just being pedantic or something else. Perhaps an example will help illuminate. Attack rolls in D&D. Are they representational? I say they are. What are your thoughts?

Gygax's DMG says this (p 61):

The system assumes much activity during the course of each round. Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one minute melee round many attacks are made, but some ore mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the "to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever.​

This suggests that the roll to hit, in AD&D, represents how well the target, of that one attack that actually has a chance to land, does in attempting to avoid, block or parry it.

4e D&D says this (PHB p 273):

To determine whether an attack succeeds, you make an attack roll. You roll a d20 and add your base attack bonus for that power. A power’s base attack bonus measures your accuracy with that attack and is the total of all modifiers that normally apply to it.​

That makes it clear that the bonus represents something - accuracy - but the roll itself seems to be a mere determiner. This is reinforced, it seems to me, by this on pp 276 and 278:

When you hit with an attack, you normally deal damage to your target, reducing the target’s hit points. The damage you deal depends on the power you use for the attack. Most powers deal more damage than basic attacks do, and high-level powers generally deal more damage than low-level ones. If you use a weapon to make the attack, your weapon also affects your
damage. If you use a greataxe to deliver a power, you deal more damage than if you use a dagger with the same power. . . .

When you roll a natural 20 and your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target’s defense, you score a critical hit, also known as a crit. . . . Rather than roll damage, determine the maximum damage you can roll with your attack. This is your critical damage. . . . Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage you deal when you score a critical hit. If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage; you add the result of the roll.​

The attack roll is a mere determiner. But the damage - whether rolled or fixed or a combination of both - represents how powerful/effective/devastating/etc the attack was.

This is also how 4e D&D allows for damage on a miss.

Anyway, my posts about this mentioned the rolling of tests in Burning Wheel, the rolling of dice pools in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, and the rolling of the hit location die in RuneQuest. Are you saying that those rolls represent something? If you are, are you able to say what you think they represent?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

And you don't think that, possibly, the reason could be that a player chose to create a character struggling with their beliefs, values, or commitments?

Perhaps because they were playing a game which prompted them to choose one or more beliefs, values, or commitments, and then put that character in situations where those things would be challenged, questioned, or put at risk? Such that, for example, the player would be called to be immersed in that character's thoughts and feelings as they try to grapple with those challenges/questions/risks, possibly proving that their beliefs/values/commitments were truly what they seemed to be, perhaps revealing that they aren't actually as strongly-held as the character believed?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the character I'm playing has half-decent or better Int and Wis scores (or equivalent) then in theory the character would - if given a choice - often try to find the most logical-pragmatic-safe route.

A couple of my own long-serving characters are like this.

One is a Fighter, engineer* by trade, who despite being put through some ridiculously silly situations during his career still tries to find the logical-pragmatic-safe way of getting things done. His main character flaw is that, particularly in his earlier days, he was as greedy as they come; other than that he's not all that dissimilar in outlook to Ser Davos (the Onion Knight) in GoT.

Another is a Mage, grew up on a farm then spent years in the Legions. She too tries for the logical and-or pragmatic approach, though she's a bit less concerned about the safety of others; she learned long ago that sometimes there are acceptable losses. Her main flaw is one of impatience, which might prove a real problem in the bureaucratic faux-Roman realm she one day hopes to rule.

* - he started out as the engineer found in the basement of A2 Slavers' Stockade.

Again you are dodging the core of the question.

It is not whether they try to find SOME answer which seems ADEQUATELY reasonable and logical.

The standard was that they must try to find THE MOST logical, pragmatic answer possible. We aren't talking about just finding a local high point. We're talking about surveying the entire field and selecting only the very best possible option.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Have you read the Apoclaypse World rulebook? Do you know how that game handles PC build, setting creation, GM prep (notice how I've separated that from setting creation), adjudication of consequences for declared actions, etc?

If you haven't, then I don't see how you are in a position to criticise the text.

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 only disruption I see is a handful of RPGers, playing what seems to be reasonably mainstream D&D, apparently being upset that there are other RPGs out there which are offering alternatives to that.

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.

Huh? The Apocalypse World rulebook is not a commentary on your D&D play, or @Maxperson's, or anyone elses.

It is telling would-be participants in a game of AW how to do what they do. That's it.

I don't see how you can make the game not boring and the character's lives boring.

Excellent! In that case the advice is wasted on you. But nevertheless harmless.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, but to be fair, he's said more than once that when he says that he's talking about directly connected/related. If I decide I want ice cream, get in my car, drive to the store, go into the store, buy some ice cream, leave the store, drive home, scoop out some ice cream, put the rest of the ice cream into my freezer, walk outside with the bowl, and drop a little bit on the ground, and ants come to eat the ice cream, yes the ants eating the ice cream is connected to the decision that I wanted ice cream. It's not directly connected/related though.

We’ve been talking about a cook hearing someone picking a lock. There are no interim steps between the lock picker acting and the cook reacting.

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.

No it’s not. Because having the principle “Make the characters’ lives not boring” is not a statement about the quality of the game. It is advice for the players and the GM. Make decisions that will be interesting.

As a player, make interesting choices. As a GM, inflict adversity and excitement on the PCs.

It’s telling you what to shoot for. It’s not saying “this game is fun and the others aren’t, nyah nyah!”

I don't see how you can make the game not boring and the character's lives boring.

“Nothing happens.”

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.

Really? Interesting is now the opposite of safe?

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.

As others have pointed out, fail forward is often a method used in conjunction with principles like “make the characters’ lives not boring”.

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?

I’m not sure where fail forward first came into use in a game, but I know it was popularized via discussion on the Forge. Ron Edwards and Luke Crane were the big proponents, I believe.

However, I will point out that I’m not super knowledgable of all the Forge stuff. I could certainly be wrong.

I think you miss the point. @Lanefan described a in my eyes completely valid interpretation of the text provided read in isolation. The reading is valid if the character is considered a fixed piece created on session 0 to be handled according to player vision. In this context "It’s your job to make their life not boring" hard to not read as "go seek out trouble". Which is stupid.

Why? What do your PCs do in your games? Form a knotting circle? Or might they pierce a finger so instead it’s mahjong?

I have absolutely now words for how much I hate this notion. It has poisoned almost all modern fiction.

All of modern fiction? That’s a really big brush.

Let alone that it poisoned fiction thousands of years ago!

Doing things that make sense isn't your goal.

In the context of the conversation that was going on, it was clearly about games where the principle of”make the characters’ lives not boring” applies.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I get what you're saying here, and, for a large amount I agree. Someone who just disrupts the game for the sake of disrupting the game is being a jerk.

OTOH, playing the game and always choosing the most rational, logical, advantageous option is not being true to a character either. The character should make choices that are different from what you might think are the best at the time. That's what being a character means. So, sure, while you, the player, absolutely know that that hooded woman is a medusa, sometimes, it's a lot more interesting in the game to act as if you don't.

 

[pemerton]

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.

"Fail forward" is a fairly well-known technique. It is part of an approach to play that emphasises (to use a metaphor) the "momentum" of play, including trajectories of threat and promise. It is related to players having clear goals or intents or hopes in their action declarations, which - on a failure - the GM will thwart by introducing a complication. It is also related to approaches to the framing of scenes (or, if you prefer, the presentation of situations by the GM to the players) that have threat and promise implicit in them.

The Burning Wheel text, which you have read, is an example of how this can be set out in a rulebook.

It is quite possible to play D&D in this way, in my experience. I've done it in 4e D&D, and I've also done it in AD&D using thief's skills and non-weapon proficiencies as the basis for rolls. I suspect it is not that hard to do in 5e D&D, given that the 5e D&D system for ability and skill checks is pretty minimal in its core presentation.

People who don't want this sort of thing won't use "fail forward". Those who do, might use it. Where is the confusion? What is the issue?

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the character I'm playing has half-decent or better Int and Wis scores (or equivalent) then in theory the character would - if given a choice - often try to find the most logical-pragmatic-safe route.

A couple of my own long-serving characters are like this.

Are all your characters like this? Are none of them ruled by their passions? Are none of them addicted to danger? Are none of them willing to put it all on the line for fortune and glory?

I can’t understand this pushback against making interesting choices for characters. It’s bonkers.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. And I've given you some examples, but you're contesting them.

Just to be clear. I'm challenging your categorization of things based solely on the definition you provided.

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.

Let's be precise here. I do not say that managing logistics and inventory by itself can be an example of rising action or rising conflict. I say that it can be a part of rising action or rising conflict.

'Conflict' has a very broad meaning and 'rising' just denotes that the game progresses from some state of less conflict to more conflict (until a resolution to that conflict is reached).

To me, that means that maybe you mean something different from those terms than I do?

I think what's more likely is that our differences in categorization is due to there being some additional requirements for the definition additional to just 'rising conflict across a moral line....' that haven't been explicitly stated yet. And that's fine. The goal isn't to pull a 'gotcha'. It's so I can understand what those other requirements are.