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

[pemerton]

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).

I don't know what you are getting at by distinguishing "is an example of" from "is a part of".

Suppose that I am producing a suspense/thriller/slasher-type film. In that film, a character is going to have the perpetrator enter his room while he is asleep.

Here is what rising action might look like: a scene with the character coming home, deadlocking their door; a scene with them lying in bed, turning fitfully because they are scared of the perpetrator; a scene in which they take a sleeping tablet to help them fall asleep; then a scene of them lying in bed, asleep, and someone seems to be turning the handle of their bedroom door . . .

Suppose, between the shot of them in bed asleep, and the cut to the turning door handle, I were to include two hours of footage on the model of Warhol's film Sleep. That would not contribute to rising action. It would not be an instance of, or a part of, rising action.

Here is what narrativist RPGing involves (as per Baker):

After setup, what a game's rules do is control how you resolve one situation into the next. If you're designing a Narrativist game, what you need are rules that create a) rising conflict b) across a moral line c) between fit characters d) according to the authorship of the players. Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a climax and resolution.​

Logistical planning, managing inventory, calculating healing requirements (a complex thing in Rolemaster play), etc - as far as rising action is concerned, these are the RPG analogues of Sleep. They are not "steps upward in a conflict". They refocus attention away from conflict, and how it might rise and climax, onto other matters: technical details, counting widgets, performing calculations, etc.

This is not a criticism of those things. It's an observation that they do not contribute to narrativist RPGing. As Edwards said (making the comparison to the hardware pages of a Tom Clancy novel, rather than to Sleep), they require the participants to stop addressing premise and to focus on other things.

Now, if you think you have found a way to integrate logistical and inventory management RPGing into a focus on rising action across a moral line, please post about it! As I mentioned, the only RPG that I know of that tackles this is Torchbearer 2e; but I'm sure there are other ways of doing it.

But when the logistics and inventory management is the essentially technical, accounting task that (say) Rolemaster presents , or that classic D&D presents, or that Classic Traveller presents, then I simply don't see how it can be an instance of rising action or conflict, let alone across a moral line.

 

[pemerton]

"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?

Note: your definition above leaves off nearly all the specific implementations of it in games like AW or burning wheel. The confusion being referenced is this conversational shift between the general notion of fail forward to any specific implementation of it. Of particular note is that when others are talking about the general notion of it, you bring up a specific implementation and probably unintentionally make it sound like that specific implementation has necessary requirements for fail forward when even you agree it doesn't. These kinds of general to specific or specific to general shifts when not recognized/acknowledged make for extremely frustrating conversations.

I guess my question is: what do you, or @Enrahim, feel that you do not understand about "fail forward" as an approach to resolution.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

And yet they still exist, because as far as I'm concerned we live in a logical universe.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Which is why it's such a stupid and bad term. If the principle is make decisions that will be interesting, that's what it should be called. Don't call it something that if false on its face.

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!”

That's the implication of the term, though. When applied to other games like it was earlier in the thread, it implies that the game isn't fun if you don't use that technique.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

If that's the game you enjoy, go for it. Why would what you play matter to me?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Name me one RPG who if you play it, results in characters who have boring lives. Who never adventure. Who never encounter monsters and neat places. Who never have any kind of excitement.

Just one.

I'm fairly confident designers don't make games designed to be boring.

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.

Offensively named alternatives. We don't actually care about the mechanics.

 

[Maxperson]

I haven't played Monsterhearts, but it seems to me the designers really do intend characters to do things I as player might call stupid or going in unprepared. I think they're telling players to set aside preconceptions like that. Otherwise, why say it?

There's also It Came From The Late, Late, Late Show where you play B actors in B movies. On page 8 it goes into great detail about acting appropriately stupid. For example, you're at a resort where some psycho has been knifing people to death and you walk into a room where you see a trail of fresh blood going into a closet. Common sense would tell you to leave, but in a B movie the actor would go and investigate.

That's a principle of stupidity in an RPG. They do exist!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Which is why it's such a stupid and bad term. If the principle is make decisions that will be interesting, that's what it should be called. Don't call it something that if false on its face.

How is it false? It’s literally the advice.

That's the implication of the term, though. When applied to other games like it was earlier in the thread, it implies that the game isn't fun if you don't use that technique.

Oh my god would you guys stop being so paranoid about people saying D&D is boring?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. It suggests that the attack roll is for the attack, like it literally says. If the roll representing the attack fails, then the DM comes up with a reason like it was avoided, blocked or whatever.

Now here's 2e...

"At the heart of the combat system is the attack roll. This is the die roll that determines whether an attack succeeds or fails."

Clearly the roll represents the attack.

Now 3e...

"Rolling a d20 to see if an attack hits is the bread and butter of combat encounters."

Again, rolling is representative of the attack.

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?

That's still an attack roll being representative of the attack. Damage is representative of the result OF the attack, not the attack itself.

5e...

"Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll."

For the 5th time in 5 editions, it's representative of the attack.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Step one: Attempt to pick the lock and fail.
Step two: The lock fails to open, which is the only direct result of the failed check.
Step three: The cook is in the room to hear the noise(which means she is there to hear the noise on a successful attempt since she's not quantum).
Step four: The cook has to make a successful perception check.
Step five: The cook does whatever if the perception is successful.
Step six: Profit.

The only thing that is the direct result of failing to open the lock is the lock remaining locked. You are skipping steps and just putting the cook there, having heard the attempt. That doesn't make her the direct result of the failed check.