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

[Maxperson]

That more noise is made on the failed attempt... enough to alert someone nearby. Similar to a stealth roll.

It's a pretty ridiculous concept in my opinion. The master thief is quiet and stealthy with the lock unless his misses his roll, then he's an incompetent Keystone Cop thief who makes a lot of noise and alerts people.

The amount of noise a master thief makes when succeeding isn't going to be less, and may in fact be more because of the click the lock makes when it opens, than if he fails. He still highly skilled and taking care just the same as if he succeeded.

I don't think either of these things is true. I believe that one attempt at picking a lock can be quieter than another, just like one can walk more quietly, or attempt to do just about anything else quietly.

The master at stealth isn't going to make a ton of noise, even with a low roll. He's going to be walking more quietly than a normal walk regardless of success or failure. It's not going to be silent as the wind if he succeeds, and stomping through the woods kicking branches if he fails.

Yeah, I don't agree... I think this is all semantic nonsense.

Eh, no. Dismissing things because semantics is to dismiss the definitions of things. Your are dismissing the meaning of words, which are very, very often critical to understanding. Semantics is important, not nonsense.

I've noticed that quite often here people like to shout SEMANTICS! when what things really mean would make their argument weak or simply overcome it.

Yes, I understand that. I've simply represented that step in another way. It's one step removed... the lock picking makes noise, someone hears it.

Which is all that I've been saying. I've said, "You skipped steps" and "It's not a direct result." One step removed is not direct. Thank you for at least acknowledging that it's an indirect connection.

The principle tells you to do what it wants you to do. It's not telling you to do something completely different.

The principle isn't what it's named. The principle is, "Make things interesting," not "Don't make the character's lives boring." The latter is the very incorrect name that they gave to the principle. The name has nothing to do with the principle.

But according to your logic, the 5e text is accusing every other game that exists of encouraging metagame thinking.

No. By my logic if you take 5e's statement and try to apply it to say burning wheel, it's implying that. Now, burning wheel may have that same advice, in which case it wouldn't make sense to try and apply 5e's advice to it. You generally only try to apply advice from one game to another when that second game isn't already following that advice.

Things are not just interesting because we play the game. We have to make it so. If the characters meet in a tavern, and the GM never presents them with anything to do, and they don't think of something themselves... that's not inherently interesting. We're not going to just say "wow these characters sitting in this tavern is totally not boring at all" automatically.

It's also not inherently playing the game. I've been very clear. If you play the game, the character's lives will be interesting by default.

The players and the GM should actively do something to make things interesting.

Which only applies to the players. The character's lives are inherently interesting. When the DM makes the "character's lives interesting" it's to interest the players, not the characters.

That above advice is focused on the wrong things. The advice should be, "Make the results interesting to the players."

Luke's life on Tatooine was boring. If we looked at it as a game, his player deciding to investigate the mysteries of the droids, and to go see the weird old hermit, were decisions to make his life interesting. I mean, he's literally given a choice at one point and says "I want to go with you and train to be a jedi like my father". If he was a PC, that would be the player making his life not boring... he's leaving Tatooine.

The DM prep meant that R2D2 would run off to Ben Kenobi and made Luke's life not boring. DM prep made Ben a Jedi and not just some old dude, which made Luke's life not boring. DM prep caused the random encounter with the Tuskan Raiders and made Luke's life not boring. DM prep killed off his aunt and uncle which made Luke's life not boring.

Everything prior to that was Luke's backstory, which can be boring if the player writes it that way.

Luke's life was already not boring when he decided to go with Ben. It wasn't Luke's decision which made his life not boring. It was already not boring at that point, because the game had started and you can't play an RPG and still have a character with a boring life without completely subverting the game and intentionally doing so, which isn't done.

Because you've positioned sensible as the opposite of exciting and have advocated for the players to be sensible. Then you get mad at perceived suggestions that sensible is boring.

First, sensible for the situation =/= boring. Sorry man. It's just not that way. Second, I haven't been mad at anything in this thread. Third, I do object to your strawman.

 

[Maxperson]

So you agree with the principle of "make the characters' lives not boring"?

There is no such principle. The principle is, "Make the results interesting to the players."

 

[Enrahim]

So you agree with the principle of "make the characters' lives not boring"?

Yes, in this sense:

This is how I would be laying it out if mentoring a player in trad D&D
Make each main character’s life not boring.
Set an unobtainable ambitious goal for your party. It could be general like become the wealthiest or most fameous party in the world, or something more tied to the campaign the DM has in mind. Give your character a personal reason for having that ambition, and hence seek out the party. Proactively seek out rumors and opportunities that you think could further your party's progress toward that goal. While on an adventure, never let another party member take a risk your character might be better able to handle. Always be on the lookout for opportunities where *your* character can really shine, and grab that moment! But also make sure to play up the other party member's strengths when such opportunities arrives. Remember all player characters are main characters.
This is how I would be laying it out if mentoring a trad DM
Be a fan of the characters.
(You share the same agenda as everyone else: make each main character’s life not boring.) As a DM this involves listening intently to the ideas and interest of the players and make sure there is something interesting in the directions they are contemplating. If you have good ideas of interesting things that could happen to the characters, throw out a hook that you think would be tempting for them. If they do not pursue some hooks you lay out like this, don't press the matter.
Remember to be a fan of the characters. This involve respecting their autonomy of making their own decissions even if that might not match what you had originally envisioned or preferred. Don't overwhelm them - You want to see them succeed, but in a way that really show off how awesome they are. And when one of them do meet their demise pay the same kind of respect as a propper fanboy would do losing their idol.
Even if you are a fan, that should never stop you from being a fair referee and devious adversary once you have settled on the scenario at hand.
This stuff is hardly anything new. New games just have their own spin on age old wisdom.

but not in this sense:

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!”

or in the sense monsterhearts define it ref D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

No I don't. We've all been posting here and discussing each other's ideas for a LONG time! You've been posting for 5 years now, according to your profile, but Lanefan, myself, and many of the others here go back, in my case, getting close to 20 years. He knows he's using a form of excluded middle to warp the concept of 'make their lives interesting' into something that sounds ridiculous. He knows this. I assure you he knows this. Nothing I'm saying is stupid, and while he may literally have just taken what was posted, he knows a good bit of the context. It was a hamfisted rhetorical ploy, and it got him nothing. I'm not sure why he bothered. Maybe he's attempting to work towards some actual point by going way off in left field first, and then walking it back. I guess we'll see.

I think what make this reading hard for you to see is that you indeed are supposed to not make the make the life not boring not by not seeking out trouble, but by tweaking the parameters mentioned afterwards on the fly as part of play. That is if they find themselves in a high school ball, don't make them act like a fool to cause social drama. Rather you should think if there is something new about who they are, what they want, or what they are willing to do to get it that would introduce drama intro the situation and shape the character according to that. So you are not woing the prom queen as the class nerd because it is your job to make drama. You rather decided the nerd now want to get attention (maybe to some charity previously established as an interest), and then thanks to this decission woing the prom Queen is a smart move.

OK, I think you're in the right ballpark, certainly. Look at it this way, every character in a game of, say Dungeon World, is supposed to come with some sort of question, some thing that they want, or fear, or believe in. These are expressed through backstory -as revealed by GM question asking and possibly just RP- alignment (which is an ethical statement in DW, not a 9-point grid), and bonds. Once play starts, the players job is to live up to that. FUNDAMENTALLY that is what role-playing is about, right? Inhabiting the character, BEING the character. If you aren't doing that, then you're not RPing! And the character has these bonds, alignment, race, playbook, and backstory which are supposed to motivate them. So, 'make their lives interesting' simply means giving them something for their motivations to work on.

So, this is a job for both the GM and the player. And I agree, like you give in your example, the excitement doesn't have to be, may never be, some sort of deadly catastrophic thing, or something of great weight in the greater world. You are the class nerd, who's a horny 16 year-old who lusts after the prom queen. Maybe there's some other motivations mixed in there, a desire for acceptance, rivalry with someone else, a desire to make the nerd girl you really like jealous, or to get revenge on The Jock. All the GM needs to do is present the situations which give these things life, and let the Nerd aim himself at the Prom Queen. Succeed or fail, there will be drama, and self-discovery. Maybe the Nerd is less nerdy than we thought, or maybe he's batpoo crazy and snaps, or maybe he really loved Nerd Girl and they hook up. Play to Find Out!

The key is to shape the character so that the smart thing to do is interesting. This is the same we advice in trad, just that here it happens moment to moment rather than just at character creation.

This subtle but important difference is not clearly conveyed in this quote alone (and possibly not elsewhere either?)

I think it should be pretty clear, and as I said above, this is like to 400th version of this conversation, so I think people get it.

 

[Faolyn]

I suppose, at the end of the day, this is why things like morale rules don't apply to PC's. I believe that they should. I absolutely believe that PC's should be affected by Persuasion checks (or whatever the system uses) and the system should reward players who do so.

There's no way to enforce this. A PC can accept being persuaded and then change their mind back to their original position later on. A PC can accept that morale is broken and run away and then immediately restart their attack. If there's a reward or penalty, the players will weigh the benefits of actually changing their PCs' minds or accepting the reward or penalty. Even in the most narrativist, most immersive game imaginable, they'll do this. And if the rules and penalties or actual gameplay are too boring or too unfun or get in the way of the players doing their thing, they'll simply switch games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

I've neither read nor played Monsterhearts myself. I think this is a bit of a genre trope though. You are playing teenagers and dealing with their drama. Not a group exactly known for careful planning and measured responses! So, as a genre trope, going off half-cocked seems pretty solid. Add in the 'you are actually a monster' part, and we have a whole multi-dimensional thing about self-control, desire, etc.

But if you were to say Dungeon World, then nothing in there talks about being stupid. You have entire gear lists with fairly specific keywords and moves that support them, etc. It is very much a game about being well-prepared, strategic, and prudent. At least until all heck breaks loose, and then you just go for it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, all I'm saying here is that your envelope as Little Lord Fontleroy is a bit different shape than that of Sam the Gardner, but they can both be equally pushed, and for equally rewarding play. You are not magically going to have more fun as one or the other. This is the sense in which I want you to distinguish between player and character. The player's goals are NOT the character's goals, because the player exists at a whole other level where the REASONS FOR PLAYING and its rewards exist, which cannot be goals of the character, as imagined.

Now, you want the player to inhabit the character and not think about 'player stuff', but the character still exists, as it is constructed, with regard to that player stuff, EXCLUSIVELY. So, again, being the player of the rich and powerful Lord, or of the lowly Gardner, is largely immaterial. The Lord, fictionally, may have more fun chasing sexy princesses and eating caviar than the Gardner who's too poor to do much besides get a tank at the alehouse every Friday night. But playing them is, potentially, equally rewarding for whomever wants those experiences.

By this understanding, it literally just makes no sense at all to be concerned about who plays what. Again, this is all modulus they all engage in good principled play and respect each other's fun at the table (again a table issue, not related to characters). And again, there could be genre/trope/tone/premise reasons why everyone is dirt poor, or fabulously wealthy, or such considerations are irrelevant (as they are in, say, most supers play).

 

[Lanefan]

I have, perhaps, a slightly-more-useful demonstration case for a "Fail Forward" situation.

The party is chasing someone, say an assassin. They know this is their target, but the target is very fast and might get away. So, they try various things to get to the assassin. They roll very poorly, and repeatedly fail--eventually, enough so that the assassin escapes.

Fail Forward emphatically does not mean that the assassin somehow doesn't escape, nor that the party spontaneously "knows" (or declares, or whatever) where the assassin went, nor any other form of result that isn't clearly failure.

It does, however, require that this failure not be a dead end, and there are many ways one could theoretically do this. The specific path that things take will be (and should be) shaped by the GM's understanding of the world, the assassin (since they know things the players and PCs don't), and the players themselves. Intentionally pushing things in a direction the players would find frustrating or boring or annoying would be counterproductive. Possible Fail Forward pathways include:

• The assassin gets away, but the fastest person in the party snatches something from them--a cloak, perhaps. Now they have an item they can examine to try to learn more. They still failed to catch the assassin, who has now gone off to do some other kind of nefarious deed or to report back to their masters, but they have a lead.
• The assassin, feeling spiteful, throws a poisoned dagger at the closest PC before they get away. Now there's a new problem ("save our ally from a poison we don't know!"), and a lead (the dagger, poison, or both might help).
• The assassin decides that the party is too persistent, and needs to be taken out--ASAP. So while they're catching their breath and trying to figure out what to do...the assassin is bringing in two buddies to jump them.
• Other people not-so-coincidentally harmed the process of getting to the assassin...but now those people can be squeezed for information as they're a lot less squirrelly.
• Someone else, who also wants to take down this assassin and their employers (perhaps a local thieves' guild?), observed the party trying to catch the assassin, and offers their aid--for a price.

In all of these circumstances, the fundamental action still failed: no catching the assassin. But instead of that just being a dead end with nothing further, as the party has almost no information to go on, failure still gets them a something--whatever that something might be--which permits the story to keep moving. The state-of-play neither (a) remained functionally unchanged, nor (b) changed into a complete dead end. All of the above are things that could be rooted in information the GM already knows, or in things they could reasonably extrapolate from what is already known--standards that have been repeatedly emphasized as essential to the "traditional-GM" running a sandbox-y campaign. Which, if any, would be "correct" for a given game depends on information I cannot possibly have--knowing the specific context of a given campaign, its world, its players, its GM.

This example is all good, and could work in any game I think. I could easily see any of those (except maybe the last one) playing out in my game were I to run a situation like that.

The bolded is the key element, though: the fundamental action still fails.

It's when the rolled failure of the fundamental action is turned into a narrated success that the concept falls flat for me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's a pretty ridiculous concept in my opinion. The master thief is quiet and stealthy with the lock unless his misses his roll, then he's an incompetent Keystone Cop thief who makes a lot of noise and alerts people.

The amount of noise a master thief makes when succeeding isn't going to be less, and may in fact be more because of the click the lock makes when it opens, than if he fails. He still highly skilled and taking care just the same as if he succeeded.

It's a ridiculous concept that someone picking a lock could make more or less noise? That the noise made when doing something related to skullduggery is important?

You're adding in all kinds of qualifiers here. Suddenly it's a master thief and the failure isn't just enough noise to alert soemone, but is keystone cop buffoonery. Like I've said before... if you wanted to make a ruling in this situation and describe things in a keystone cop kind of way, be my guest. I'll just continue to handle it in sensible ways that work for the fiction and for the participants.

Seems like a fault in the GM to rule in such a silly way.

The master at stealth isn't going to make a ton of noise, even with a low roll. He's going to be walking more quietly than a normal walk regardless of success or failure. It's not going to be silent as the wind if he succeeds, and stomping through the woods kicking branches if he fails.

Who said a ton of noise? It's enough to be heard by someone nearby.

Eh, no. Dismissing things because semantics is to dismiss the definitions of things. Your are dismissing the meaning of words, which are very, very often critical to understanding. Semantics is important, not nonsense.

I've noticed that quite often here people like to shout SEMANTICS! when what things really mean would make their argument weak or simply overcome it.

No, I said I disagree with your assessment and your descriptions of and distinctions between direct and indirect consequences. I think you are wrong, but I'm not going to ask you to explain why it's an indirect action to hear something because I didn't have to be there, but it's a direct action to be burned by a fire... even though I didn't have to be there.

I'm not dismissing definitions. I'm dismissing your argument because I'm not interested in going back and forth with examples of what I think is indirect versus direct compared to what you think.

Someone making a noise and someone else hearing it is clearly a direct consequence, in my opinion.

Which is all that I've been saying. I've said, "You skipped steps" and "It's not a direct result." One step removed is not direct. Thank you for at least acknowledging that it's an indirect connection.

No, that's not what I'm saying. This is more semantics.

The principle isn't what it's named. The principle is, "Make things interesting," not "Don't make the character's lives boring." The latter is the very incorrect name that they gave to the principle. The name has nothing to do with the principle.

Do you think that given the facts that you've not read the book, have not played any games that have this principle, haven't played games that have similar principles, and folks who have are describing it differently... none of this even gives you pause to think perhaps you've misunderstood? That perhaps you don't understand the thing better than those who have actual experience with it?

Does that thought even cross your mind as like a possibility?

No. By my logic if you take 5e's statement and try to apply it to say burning wheel, it's implying that. Now, burning wheel may have that same advice, in which case it wouldn't make sense to try and apply 5e's advice to it. You generally only try to apply advice from one game to another when that second game isn't already following that advice.

No. As someone who has actually done that... taken elements of other games and used them in 5e... I didn't do so because 5 somehow made the characters' lives boring. I did it because I find it's a good way to keep the game moving, and to cut down on the amount of rolls and keep procedures shorter.

What elements from other games have you incorporated into 5e? And why did you do so? Please share your experiences with this!

It's also not inherently playing the game. I've been very clear. If you play the game, the character's lives will be interesting by default.

Okay. Tell me how the characters lives will be interesting by default without action from the players or GM to make it so.

I'm curious what you have in mind here.

Which only applies to the players. The character's lives are inherently interesting. When the DM makes the "character's lives interesting" it's to interest the players, not the characters.

That above advice is focused on the wrong things. The advice should be, "Make the results interesting to the players."

The DM prep meant that R2D2 would run off to Ben Kenobi and made Luke's life not boring. DM prep made Ben a Jedi and not just some old dude, which made Luke's life not boring. DM prep caused the random encounter with the Tuskan Raiders and made Luke's life not boring. DM prep killed off his aunt and uncle which made Luke's life not boring.

So how is that against the principle of "make the characters' lives not boring?

Everything prior to that was Luke's backstory, which can be boring if the player writes it that way.

Luke's life was already not boring when he decided to go with Ben. It wasn't Luke's decision which made his life not boring. It was already not boring at that point, because the game had started and you can't play an RPG and still have a character with a boring life without completely subverting the game and intentionally doing so, which isn't done.

Sure it was. He could have said "look what's already happened to me by getting involved in this nonsense... it would be far more sensible to let the imperials know what's happened and to turn the droids over. I'll probably even get a reward!"

It's not one point that this principle is about. It's something meant to be considered throughout play.

First, sensible for the situation =/= boring. Sorry man. It's just not that way. Second, I haven't been mad at anything in this thread. Third, I do object to your strawman.

You're reading an insult into your type of play based on suggestions to players and GMs for a game you don't even play. Feel free to replace mad with "insulted" if you like.

There is no such principle. The principle is, "Make the results interesting to the players."

There is. Just because you don't like it or how it's worded, doesn't change what the book is actually saying. Denying it seems silly.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I'm not sure what 10 seconds of inventory management looks like, though.

Player: "I spend 75 g.p. reloading my basic gear and equipment to the original amounts and conditions on my character sheet - full quivers, full rations, replace a few bits showing wear and tear, that sort of thing."
DM: "OK. Chalk off the 75. If you're looking for anything more pricey, check the equipment guide for prices and take care of it on your own while I sort out what Jocasta's doing."

Boom. Done.