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

[AlViking]

And for the last time, many of us have said that this was a bad example. Why do you keep bringing it up like it's the end-all and be-all of fail forward design?

I don't see how picking a lock to get into a house is a bad example for a discussion. If you think it's a bad example provide better ones.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think there's a version of FF that demands no failures. The example you were responding to seems to me to be pretty solid. Honestly? Where FF gets less easy to apply is when we're dealing with very atomic little actions that don't carry any of the weight of the context with them. "You fail to pick the lock" as an isolated atom of fiction doesn't really leave much to be worked with, and if you absolutely insist that every instant of play be fully diegetic within itself, so that you can't bring in concerns from the larger context, then how would you do FF? You can't! I mean, you CAN, but then the only option you have is to say "OK, you picked the lock, but someone heard you." Like, you kind of create your own issues, which is fine, do what you want, but don't attribute the limitations of those techniques to other concepts, like FF. FF works great!

Alternatively, one could largely eschew FF for those binary "yes or no" tasks (e.g. picking a lock), go with "nothing happens" instead, and leave it up to the players to make the next move.

And I'd also just add that the example you're responding to really begs to be a more fully-fleshed-out resolution system, like Skill Challenges ala 4e D&D or something. That way you don't really have to worry as much about this context, it is supplied. A check to see if you ran quickly enough fails, it has consequences, but the SC continues, you can still see the bad guy, he's just far ahead of you, or you know the general way he's gone. Eventually you get to the 'failed the SC' point and THEN FF considerations really apply, but this is a much bigger higher abstraction thing that's failed, so it is much easier to use its extensive context to find 'hooks' that lead on to further action in the same general direction (IE whatever the goal was for catching the guy).

Interesting in that you see 4e-like skill challenges as a more fleshed-out resolution system where I see them as a means of taking what would otherwise be a more fleshed-out series of resolutions in detail and rolling them all up into one bare-bones set-up, skipping much of the intervening detail and possibilities.

I think the way Ezekiel put that example is fine. The assassin gets away, but you've got something with which to start making a next move. Also, in that example there's loads of PC-side options even if the assassin gets away clean and doesn't leave any clues e.g. torn bit of cloak or a thrown dagger; only if the players are as creative as bricks would they not be able to think of and try to implement some ways and means of finding out who the assassin was and-or where said assassin might be found.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

What's up with all of the dead space at the end of posts?

It's interfering with my doom scrolling

 

[AnotherGuy]

If there doesn't seem to be any time pressure I'll sometimes ask how long they intend to spend trying, before they start. (more often for secret-door searching that could go on all day than locks, where it's usually fairly clear fairly soon* whether or not you're going to get it - if you spend 15 minutes at it and fail, another 15 isn't likely to get any further).

* - though much longer than one of 5e's 6-second rounds!

Okay we agree on the longer than 5e's 6-second rounds!
I'd likely double the time each time for each additional attempt, thus allowing the roll but the wasted time would heighten the frustration of repeating the action which would either result in

• a terrible failure (i.e. lockpick bust, locked jammed) and I would be gradually increasing the chance of this happening;
• an eventual success, but much wasted time; or
• the party, now frustrated, deciding to pursue a different course of action.

By the logic presented earlier, though, once they've established their peak they'll then remain at that peak thanks to Take-20; there's no mechanic to allow for their having an off day or feeling under the weather or just not having their A-game.

If they get to Take 20 they'll do their perfect best every time.

I'm not sure that is how take-20 works.
You cannot take-20 during a hockey game or to make your best swimming time?
The whole point of taking-20 as I recall is that there is no pressure including an immediate time constraint, so for instance how can you "take your time" making your best swim time - if you did you wouldn't make your best time by default.
Similarly you do not tell the entire opposing team to back-off while you ponder how to take the best shot against goals.

Take-10 and Take-20 fall nicely under the rules-that-make-no-sense banner: they assume a fixed and unwavering degree of competence that just doesn't exist in reality. I'd rather model not just the pre-coded difficulty of the task but also the character's ability in this moment to perform said task. Take-20 in particular also tends to make the whole thing much more binary than it really needs to be; the only thing that can beat you is a too-high DC, and it either beats you or it doesn't.

Some days you got it, some days you don't.

Agree! So for me it is on a case-by-case basis, I may offer a take-10 or take-20 upfront.
For example:

• Slow and steady climb up the cliff-face (take-20) but use-up a HD or 2; OR
• Attempt to beat the mid-day sun, (skill-check), with failure's resulting in a random consequence on a table.

EDIT: I find all these rules through the various editions and games useful tools to apply creatively when needed to bring about the most enjoyment at the table. i.e. I enjoy tailoring the experiencing if possible.
Hence I'm not against say a Fail Forward or a Take 10/20 because they may be useful in x or y situation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Unless I'm missing something, I think I more or less agree with this in principle.

That said, there's always going to be players who get resentful at what they perceive as mechanical imbalance between characters, and D&D has gone a long way toward catering to these players via things like point-buy or array stat generation instead of rolling, removal of a lot of baked-in species-based advantages or drawbacks in order to make the playable species all more equal, milestone or story-based levelling instead of individual xp, and so on.

Yeah, there are games, like 4e D&D, where everyone being equally effective in combat is kind of important. OTOH outside of that sort of consideration, things like social status and racial perceptions, eh. I mean, some things might not be fun, so people should not create those kinds of scenarios, either as game designers or GMs, etc. But I don't feel like point buy kinds of things do much. At least, they imply some very heavy mechanical stuff that I honestly have grown weary of. Like, Dungeon World is about the most complicated thing I feel like learning and running nowadays. Some new edition of D&D? Forget it.

I'm not a fan of these changes; I much prefer that to a certain extent you play what the dice give you and that - like real life - some characters at the start of their adventuring careers simply have more going for them than others. That said, it does help to have a system and-or playstyle where characters come and go halfway regularly (i.e. you're not likely to be stuck with the same one for the whole campaign) and where starting stats etc. don't have all that much say over projected career length.

It's a style that has been popular, though not so much anymore. I think the thing is, when characters were mostly pawn stance and character sheets didn't do a lot, one guy having a few bonuses was handy, but not actually a big deal. OD&D, your 18 STR fighter just got some bonus XP and maybe pulled off a feat of strength or two now and then. It wasn't that big a deal. Now that people play the same PC for years and sheets are larded with bonuses for everything all over the place, it has more impact. In the bad old days you wanted to play a Fighting Man? You got a STR of 6 and you're stuck being a Magic User? Well, you only got 2 hit points... And rolling up a new character takes 2.5 minutes, tops!

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

These were excellent! This is what I was trying to get us to explore way upthread (thread moves so fast for me) instead of the discussion of Fail Foward getting stuck on a lockpick/cook scenario for a 1,000 pages.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think my main problem come down to this constellation of sentences.
"But being their advocate doesn’t mean it’s your job to keep them safe. It’s not. It’s your job to make their life not boring."
In one way I cannot say straight out that I disagree. I think I could manage to construe a meaning from this collection of words I could agree with. However I can also construe this to mean several things I disagree with a passion about. So this ambiguity is the flaw.

In particular the interpretation that safety measures for the character is in no way your job as a player is a bit hard to avoid. Also the ramifications of what you can or should do to do the "job" the advocacy is claimed to entail is up for extreme levels of interpretation. The surrounding text is too fuzzy for me to extract any solid boundaries for this, and the boundiaries I would find "acceptable" would be very strict indeed.

I could easily imagine a player (mis)reading this piece of "advice" and come to my game behaving in a way that might almost completely ruin my enjoyment of the game.

I think there is no game text that is going to both present a generalized RPG, as most of us would recognize it, and not be open to some degree of interpretation. Still, I think Dungeon World, for instance, does vastly better than D&D 5e here. It at least explains the game in a pretty easily understood way, and gives much stronger rules, guidelines, and directives for how to structure play.

But of course there is always going to be endless questions: Does making move XYZ sufficiently challenge the character's? Does it really follow from the fiction, or are you smuggling in some assumptions? Is this move in keeping with the stakes as they have been understood by the players? Is it actually interesting? Is it gameable? (this last one is not ever discussed by ANY RPG I know of, but it is a huge elephant in the room at all times).

Anyway, I agree that 'interesting' and 'be a fan of' and 'follows from the fiction' and all the rest CAN sometimes be a bit ambiguous. Still, they rule out a lot of territory. I mean, I would say that delving into the details of exactly how and what sort of toiletries female gendered characters deal with would, for example, probably not be interesting in the vast majority of games, right? Is the history of Lizard Man spell casting, and associated facts about lost antediluvian magic interesting? Yeah, probably to some people. Is researching it challenging? Perhaps! Is it 'conflict across a moral line'? Well, DW doesn't actually talk about that directly, but yes it COULD be, or maybe it would just be some very pedantic boring exploration of setting that nobody cares about.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

Can a referee be a fan of a sportsman and still be a neutral arbiter?
Can a father be a fan of their kid and still discipline their child when need be?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think my main problem come down to this constellation of sentences.
"But being their advocate doesn’t mean it’s your job to keep them safe. It’s not. It’s your job to make their life not boring."
In one way I cannot say straight out that I disagree. I think I could manage to construe a meaning from this collection of words I could agree with. However I can also construe this to mean several things I disagree with a passion about. So this ambiguity is the flaw.

In particular the interpretation that safety measures for the character is in no way your job as a player is a bit hard to avoid. Also the ramifications of what you can or should do to do the "job" the advocacy is claimed to entail is up for extreme levels of interpretation. The surrounding text is too fuzzy for me to extract any solid boundaries for this, and the boundiaries I would find "acceptable" would be very strict indeed.

I could easily imagine a player (mis)reading this piece of "advice" and come to my game behaving in a way that might almost completely ruin my enjoyment of the game.

How so? What would your concern be?

 

[Gimby]

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).

Right - this is something that makes sense in the context of games in a specific context where leveraging certain types of power alters the inter-party balance. To offer a recent example where this hasn't been a problem in a game of Vampire I'm in at the moment, we have a highly placed lawyer Ventrue with massive financial assets to hand and significant temporal influence, but in the normal scope of play the penniless Nosferatu gets more done due to having more relevant skills and owning a motorbike. It's pretty context dependant on what's important at the time.

In terms of point buy systems, having variable costs for things dependant on the campaign is in several games - one good example of this is Big Eyes Small Mouth - a generic system for anime inspired games. There's a perk "Own a big Mecha" that has highly variable costs dependent on genre - clearly for a mech combat based game then owning one and it's stats is of great interest, but if you are running a game based around say, a cooking tournament, then it's much cheaper - the assumption is that it's not very easy to leverage and is probably more of a gag thing than a serious advantage.