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

[clearstream]

If you look through the first couple of pages of this thread, you'll see plenty of examples of this usage.

I might have misunderstood your line of argument. I thought you were proposing that some GMs use fail-forward to railroad. I'd agree it's possible but I've never seen it, nor can I think of a game text that encourages it (happy to be given examples showing that there are.)

The first three pages of this thread don't mention fail-forward at all. Did you have something else in mind?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, that's fair - although I'm pretty sure it's been defined multiple times throughout the years with this specific crew of back and forthers; inclusive of me sharing the version that Stonetop uses with context on a page where everybody still participating had a back and forth about it.

Apparently it's not been very well defined .. ala the 15k current thread.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course. I quoted Edwards talking about pages detailing military hardware. I drew the analogy to Warhol's Sleep. I have repeatedly talked about a significant amount of time being spent on matters such as logistics, inventory management and the like.

Okay. Then to me that would be an additional requirement in the definition of narrativist than rising action. Especially if we are staying close to the literary meaning of rising action.

At least I now know more about what it means to you.

The concept of "rising action" or "rising conflict" is not invented by me, or by Vincent Baker. I'm not trained in criticism, but as I understand it, "rising action" is a fairly common notion to use in analysing fiction (literature and film).

Yes, but it's never said a piece of literature or film doesn't have rising action simply because it spent significant time detailing hardware/logistics/inventory/etc, which is why I found it surprising such would be said of a game.

To what extent you can sustain and then release tension; relax or intensify the pacing; etc, and still maintain rising action, is a matter of (i) skill and (ii) taste/inclination.

Right, but the important bit here to me is the notion that tension can be released and pacing can be slowed while still maintaining rising action.

 

[FrogReaver]

So fail-forward is about railroading? Of course that's not what you mean, but pursuing dramatic narrative has been observed to be in tension with playing game as game. Kim, for instance, discusses this.

If we can accept that a player can roleplay a character that doesn't always make the correct tactical or strategic choice and count that as playing the game as a game (likely due to viewing those roleplay restrictions on choices as part of the game itself), then I'm not sure why one couldn't do the same with pursing dramatic narrative and view those restrictions as part of the game itself.

Or maybe your belief is that doing either of those activities means you are not playing the game as a game.

 

[Maxperson]

IOW, Enrahim was saying "characters need to always make the most rational, pragmatic decision possible", because anything else is bad. Hence, characters need to be played such that they always make the most rational, pragmatic choice possible.

What does the bolded mean?

It could mean that you make the most pragmatic decision that anyone could ever possibly make, which would always be the perfect decision.

Or it could mean that you make the most pragmatic decision possible for the PC under those circumstances, which will often not be the most pragmatic decision anyone could ever possibly make.

What it's not saying, is to completely throw out pragmatism and rationality, and just thrive on risk when your PC isn't that kind of person.

 

[Enrahim]

Okay. But if it is a classic realism argument...

And numerous people in this thread are making realism arguments (often substituting other words which are, themselves, an attempt to avoid saying "realism" while still really just being realism in a trenchcoat) about their characters...

Where does that leave us?

I don't know - maybe that there is a divide between physical realism and psychological realism at play here? Or maybe the fact that I am not in the realism lair, and I can't really speak for what those folks prefer in their stories?

Bur you yourself continued that precise argument! You demanded that characters never be swayed by emotion, never have a lapse of judgment, never think something is more or less important than a dry accounting of the facts would indicate. That's what you argued: "conflict between characters that do exclusively perfectly rational and pragmatic decissions [sic] given their set of values, and limited information." (Emphasis in original.)

I think I know better what I intended to convey than you. To further clarify, check version 2 here: perfectly

 

[Pedantic]

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


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.

I don't know - maybe that there is a divide between physical realism and psychological realism at play here? Or maybe the fact that I am not in the realism lair, and I can't really speak for what those folks prefer in their stories?

I think I know better what I intended to convey than you. I just clarified. Check version 2 here: perfectly

I assumed you're pointing at something here like my frustration with stories where two characters who ostensibly share a goal fail to share relevant information in a plot impacting way?

I've read a lot where attempts at "character flaw" simply read as incompetence.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Max… if someone makes a noise and another person hears it, that’s a direct result. Adding in a bunch of game steps doesn’t change that.

Notice how in your example with the ice cream and the ant, you described a bunch of actual steps for the person in the fiction. Here you’ve added a bunch of mechanical steps. But set mechanics aside. The thief makes the noise while lock picking, and the direct consequence fictionally is the cook hearing it. There are no steps in between that the characters are experiencing the way there was with the ice cream and the ant.

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.

Okay, so if D&D provides advice to the GM to “be a neutral arbiter” that’s saying that the GM in Mothership is not a neutral arbiter?

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

A game telling its GM "do this" is not saying "all other games don't do this".

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?"

First off, the principle of "Make the characters' lives not boring" is not a mechanic. It is advice, to both players and GMs. And it is in no way a commentary on other games. Nor is it derogatory in any way.

This is an entirely imaginary concern.

 

[Maxperson]

Max… if someone makes a noise and another person hears it, that’s a direct result. Adding in a bunch of game steps doesn’t change that.

Notice how in your example with the ice cream and the ant, you described a bunch of actual steps for the person in the fiction. Here you’ve added a bunch of mechanical steps. But set mechanics aside. The thief makes the noise while lock picking, and the direct consequence fictionally is the cook hearing it. There are no steps in between that the characters are experiencing the way there was with the ice cream and the ant.

Noise is not a result of failure to pick the lock. It exists if you are successful at picking the lock. It exists if you aren't even trying to pick the lock and just shove lockpicks around in the lock for a while having fun.

The only direct result of the attempt to pick the lock is success or failure to unlock it. Similarly, if there's a cook behind the door to hear the noise, she is there regardless of success or failure. After all, she's not quantum, right? She doesn't just pop in there on a failure and have her location fixed by the result of a die roll to pick a lock.

Further, the perception check is a step in the process, whether it's mechanical or not. On a success or failure, she may not notice the noise.

You are skipping steps.

Okay, so if D&D provides advice to the GM to “be a neutral arbiter” that’s saying that the GM in Mothership is not a neutral arbiter?

Possibly. Does Mothership tell the DM to be a neutral arbiter? Some RPGs want the DM to be a fan of the players, which is not being a neutral arbiter.

A game telling its GM "do this" is not saying "all other games don't do this".

You're conflating "saying" with "implying." I've been using the word implication for a reason.

First off, the principle of "Make the characters' lives not boring" is not a mechanic. It is advice, to both players and GMs. And it is in no way a commentary on other games. Nor is it derogatory in any way.

It's not advice. The character's lives are already not boring, so it's as much advice as someone telling you to breathe so that you don't die. You're already breathing and aren't at risk of forgetting to breathe and suffocating.

The actual advice is to make the results of failure interesting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Some are, to a point, but more ruled by their emotions than their passions. I avoid angsty introspection like the plague, however; I hate that crap in any form. This is orthagonal to the other things below; I've had emotional pragmatists and emotional gonzo types. The best character I've ever had was one of the latter: a low-Wisdom 3e version of an airhead Illusionist who wore her emotions on her sleeve and somehow just kept surviving where all around her didn't.

Those are the gonzo ones: the ones who intentionally dive into the mouth of the man-swallowing monster because hey, it'll be easier to hurt it from the inside(1); the ones who cast Fireball while only hoping the blowback doesn't reach them and-or their allies(2); the ones who at raw 1st level throw down a challenge to a whole village of Kobolds and then face-charge the place(3), etc.

(1) - Lanefan the character did just this not very long ago; the foe was a great big frog-like demon with a mouth the size of a garage door, he killed it from the inside out (it teleported away from the rest of the party to stop them whaling on it but as he was already inside, he went with it) but boy was he a mess when they finally found him. Epic moment!
(2) - I've seen many a mage of this ilk and sometimes play one such myself: Wisdom 6 plus damaging A-o-E spells equals danger, Will Robinson!
(3) - I only got to DM this one. Dumb as hell on the characters' part but hella entertaining and amusing to play out, and we've a story to tell for ages.

Fortune's no good if you're not around to spend it, and glory's just not that big a thing for most of us. (dying has some long-term risk in our games as, as per 1e, revival attempts don't come with success guaranteed and even if it does work you come back down a Con point)

The sensible thing for Luke to do would not have been to listen to the old wizard and go off to try and save the princess. Instead, he should have turned the rogue droids in to the local imperial magistrate.

The sensible thing for Indiana Jones to do would be to safely sit in his classroom and teach archaeology and history and not go gallivanting across the globe getting involved with gangsters and Nazis and cultists.

The principle to make the characters’ lives not boring doesn’t mean “be a suicidal maniac”… but it does mean taking risks. And that’s something that people do. Especially in adventure fiction.

I get that mitigating risk was kind of baked into D&D early on… but not everyone wants a game that’s been boiled down to a list of best practices where everyone is walking around with 10 foot poles and performing door protocol every time they come to a door. That's not how actual people behave.

It’s encouraging players to make decisions for their characters that are engaging and interesting and drive things forward. To be passionate about their goals and to actively pursue them, even at risk of harm or death.