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

[pemerton]

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 can name you multiple RPGs that don't have PCs who adventure. Apocalypse World. Wuthering Heights. I believe Monsterhearts.

I can name at least one RPG that does not involve monsters or neat places: Wuthering Heights.

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

That's not what the principle says. It doesn't say Make sure the game is not boring. It is addressed to the lives of the players' characters, in the context of a RPG that is not about character who adventure.

It literally says nothing about what any GM of any other RPG is or isn't, or should or shouldn't be, doing.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Because the term is a lie. The characters are not having a boring life, whether or not the advice is followed. The advice isn't false, the term is.

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

It's not paranoia. It's the actual implication.

I could just as easily say, "Oh my God, would those designers stop creating names that don't match the mechanics and/or stop making derogatory terms?"

 

[Maxperson]

I can name you multiple RPGs that don't have PCs who adventure. Apocalypse World. Wuthering Heights. I believe Monsterhearts.

I can name at least one RPG that does not involve monsters or neat places: Wuthering Heights.

Nice evasion. Adventure was just one of the things. The important part, which is the part you are avoiding, is the part where you name a single RPG whose design is to create boring lives for PCs.

Name one of those.

There aren't any, because the point of RPGs is fun and excitement for the players, which translates into exciting lives for the PCs.

Naming the mechanic "Make sure the characters don't have boring lives" is like a game about playing billionaires saying, "Make sure the PCs have lots of money." They're billionaires! They already have lots of money.

 

[Enrahim]

Hamlet enters the chat
Odysseus enters the chat
nearly every character in a drama enters the chat

Yes, Ancient greek drama started the trend. I do not know Hamlet well enough, but at least Romeo and Juliet gets a whole new layer if you start contemplating if their actions actually could be considered pragmatic and rational given their unique and extreme set of values.

I did not claim it was a new idea, but the profilation as a universally recognised advice for "a good story" is new. Yes, if you want ancient Greek tragedy, go for it. I like the setting, and the grand events of those stories, but do not care much for the primitive way they set up their conflicts in the first place.

I guess I can be a little bit more forgiving of Homer, given the artform was still at it's infancy..

 

[clearstream]

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

So far as I can find that framing appears in one game. @Campbell clarified its distinct (and non-portable) context.

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.

Stackexchange discussion pins the term down to first appearing in 13th Age, with no mentions found earlier than 2013. Though it confirms that authors you cited were promoting it earlier than that under different guises. Apparently the concept may have comes to RPG from improv theatre.

 

[Enrahim]

And yet I am of 100% precisely the opposite mind, and don't understand where you're coming from with this notion.

People don't act like perfect logic-engines that dispassionately analyze things and then pursue the calculated most logical course. Yes, people do try to act rationally, but "trying to act rationally" simply does not mean "exclusively perfectly rational and pragmatic decisions". Sometimes, it's because they lack critical information (whether through inattention, others' deception, jumping to conclusions, whatever). Sometimes, it's because "their set of values" precludes perfect rationality and pragmatism. Sometimes, even when they know what is rational and their values-system doesn't preclude it, their emotional response is more relevant.

"Rational fiction" is almost always a load of hot garbage because it spends half the word count of a text belaboring the point of how perfectly rational the people in it are behaving. Yes, we should expect people to exhibit some degree of thinking about what they want, and to try to pursue that in ways they believe (rightly or wrongly) will be effective. But that's a FAR cry from people being "perfectly rational and pragmatic". Almost entirely the opposite, actually. People act on intuition. They dismiss information that's actually important but they believe it isn't--not because of their "set of values", but because they're distracted, or prideful, or deceived, or...(etc.)

Note what the person you quoted described: "It's hard to create an interesting story around a character who always makes the most rational, pragmatic decision possible." Meaning, not just within a values-system, not just within the personal quirks and foibles of the character, etc.--THE MOST rational, pragmatic decision possible. Perfect optimization.

Perfectly optimized decision-making machines aren't particularly interesting to follow, outside of rare circumstances. Even Sherlock Holmes, notorious for his logical-pragmatic nature to the point that nowadays the default presentation is "on the autism spectrum" (with a frustratingly common side of "...and an absolute jerk to everyone else", even though that directly contradicts his behavior in several of the stories), isn't like that. He makes foolish decisions. He gets deceived and manipulated. Yes, he's trying to solve his cases. But "trying to solve his cases" doesn't mean he always makes the most rational, pragmatic decision possible. Often, he falls short of maximal rationality and pragmatism.

Let us just say: There are a couple different notions at play here.

One is your argument about how people actually work. This is the classic realism argument for justifying this notion of "flawed" characters. This is a perfectly valid concern to bring in when writing a story. Many want to read about realistic characters doing realistic things which includes a realistic dose of irrational actions. I just happen to not be one of them. And hence it is the notion that irrationality should be on the table for it to be a "good story" at all I am strongly against (even if softly described as just "being hard"). This mentality might be good for crafting a good story for some, but it is a recipe for breaking an otherwise good story for me.

The other is the notion of "most rational, pragmatic decision possible". This was as a reply to and contrasted to "make sense". There is a huge gap between your ultra genius autist and someone being sufficiently rational and pragmatic to only do things that "make sense". My objection was based on my understanding of the spirit of the entire quote I made, not to an extreme interpretation of the last sentence alone.

In other words: I do not see anything I disagree with in your post, beyond possibly some minor nit-pic I do not think is relevant to bring up.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

You're the one making an absolute out of it, not me.

"Some answer which seems adequately reasonable and logical" still strongly suggests not standing straight into adversity when there's ways around it, and instead looking for those ways and putting them to use in order to achieve the same ends.

 

[clearstream]

I think you're confusing cause and effect.

No, I'm responding to posts confusing cause and effect.

To me it is abundantly apparent that a motive for choosing fail forward is an intent that characters take risks, but fail forward doesn't encourage that risk-taking (I've seen it encourage aversion to rolling) rather it makes that risk taking more sincere or consequential.

In a game, like classic D&D (eg the original game, Gygax's AD&D, Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X), that emphasises problem solving, clever operational play, obtaining maximum treasure at a minimum cost, etc, then "fail forward" is probably not a good fit. This sort of play has its own techniques for introducing complications - wandering monster rolls being the most obvious - and don't need additional complications.

Yes, and here again the technique comes after the disposition to risk taking, not before.

To qualify my view, I believe fail forward can also be effective for this sort of play given appropriate principles such as willingness to count a granular result as narratively interesting where that is an accurate characterisation, and freedom to escalate tensions in high-noon situations by establishing some horrifying consequences up front. (I'm thinking here of Crane's explanations in the Codex.)

But in a game that encourages players to embrace the risks their PCs take, and the passions they experience, then the complications and consequences that flow from "fail forward" resolution will not be experienced as an unfair hosing.

Exactly, although as @Campbell has reminded, one probably has to take into account contextual principles and GM technique to see this.

EDIT Also having in mind here the implication of "a fair hosing" which chimes with something @AbdulAlhazred said upthread about not pulling punches.

The players thinking differently about how risk and reward and consequence are related is another part of the mindset shift.

Also true.

EDIT Related to which it seems significant that the designers on 5e 2024 promoted rolling only when failure is consequential from DMG to PHB.

 

[Enrahim]

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

Pursuing the interesting ambitions we created for them before play.

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

Yes, hence almost. Start looking for people doing things they should know runs counter to their overall valueset and goals, and you start seing them almost everywhere. (On the other hand it is indeed possible to rationalise almost anything. Spotting this notion in action isn't necessarily easy in a well crafted work of art. But it seem like I am sensitive)

Let alone that it poisoned fiction thousands of years ago!

I do not think this notion was around thousands of years ago. I think the pioneers of the artform made the art they did based on their own convictions of what would make good art, rather than some notion that it would be hard to make it without any flaws, so hence let us throw in some flaws to make good suff on easy mode.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

For example, an engine is not an example of a car but it is part of a car.

Does this clear that part up?