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

[EzekielRaiden]

Because "perfectly" of course has to mean "the most (...) possible" in the context of a rant.

I welcome a clarification....and yes, when someone is ranting and uses the phrase "exclusively perfectly", I'm going to assume they in fact do mean perfectly--especially when responding to someone else who had already said "the most...possible". Context clues made it seem quite obvious that that was what you meant.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Within the limits stated--values-system and limited information--that is precisely what I understood it to mean. Every person must be a perfect logic engine. That logic engine is permitted to break down in exclusively (their word, not mine) two cases: when their values-system forces a less-than-perfect decision, or when unaware of a lack of critical information. In all other circumstances, people should always pick the best (if only one best choice is available) or select from the best (if multiple equally-best choices are available), every time, without fail.

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.

Doesn't matter. Within any given situation, the phrase as presented means a person can never:

• Act impulsively or unthinkingly
• Be carried away by emotion
• Exhibit overconfidence (or its opposite, timidity)
• Act on prejudice despite having been exposed to valid contradicting evidence
• Act on whim or caprice

Etc.

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.

Except that the person he was arguing against wasn't saying that either!

By doing this, you are intentionally disregarding the actual words both @Enrahim and @TwoSix used, in order to bend over backwards to charitably interpret the former while simultaneously uncharitably interpreting the latter. Such a double standard is pretty blatantly unfair.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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. To further clarify, check version 2 here: perfectly

Of course you know what you meant to say.

I can only go by what you actually said, and the context in which that statement occurred.

It's quite clear, now, that you meant something rather different from the words you used--particularly given the context around the word "perfectly", which bespoke of a very strong sense, not the weak minimalist sense.

One would almost say that this reflects a situation where you made a choice that was neither eminently rational nor eminently pragmatic, but instead ran counter to your intended aims!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I have yet to see any example provided of where "Fail Forward"--as actually used by real people playing an actual game, not a hypothetical invented by its critics who neither know nor play any of the systems where such a thing is formally spelled out--results in the thing you describe.

The closest I have seen thus far is, to use my own example again, the Thief failing to pick a lock--which means the lock is still locked--but this results in a half-blind cook opening the door, seeing the Thief, and mistaking her for a scullery maid and pressing her into service. There, the door remains locked (it's not like the cook would just leave it unlocked), but now the Thief is in a world of trouble if she cannot wriggle free from her current predicament. Such an example does get her through the door, most assuredly, but it does so in a way I don't think any (reasonable) player would consider "a success"!

 

[Maxperson]

You think that is what RPGs mean when they say be a fan of the PCs?
Make sure they succeed or stack it heavily in their favour?

EDIT: My take is that it is just good basic table advice for a GM. As there is good basic table advice in the DMG.

In fact page 6 of the DMG (2014) at the top "...and let their characters do awesome things"
I'm sure I can find many more examples of this!

Being a fan means to be biased for. This could just be another bad term, though. If all it means is being a decent to good DM, then I'm all for that.

 

[Maxperson]

Within the limits stated--values-system and limited information--that is precisely what I understood it to mean. Every person must be a perfect logic engine. That logic engine is permitted to break down in exclusively (their word, not mine) two cases: when their values-system forces a less-than-perfect decision, or when unaware of a lack of critical information. In all other circumstances, people should always pick the best (if only one best choice is available) or select from the best (if multiple equally-best choices are available), every time, without fail.

My take was the other way, but it wasn't me, so I can't say for sure. That said...

Doesn't matter. Within any given situation, the phrase as presented means a person can never:

• Act impulsively or unthinkingly
• Be carried away by emotion
• Exhibit overconfidence (or its opposite, timidity)
• Act on prejudice despite having been exposed to valid contradicting evidence
• Act on whim or caprice

Etc.

This is wrong. Sometimes circumstances are such that the most pragmatic thing you can do is act impulsively or unthinkingly, etc. Most pragmatic for circumstances doesn't equate to always being some level of pragmatic. Circumstances matter a great deal.

By doing this, you are intentionally disregarding the actual words both @Enrahim and @TwoSix used, in order to bend over backwards to charitably interpret the former while simultaneously uncharitably interpreting the latter. Such a double standard is pretty blatantly unfair.

Not really. Both statements by both people could be read to an extreme or with moderation. I was just showing the moderation to your extreme for @Enrahim and the extreme to your moderation of @two70six.

Most likely neither was at the extreme.

 

[SableWyvern]

Right, so what is your take on the comment upthread about you cannot be a fan and a neutral arbiter?

I think that being a neutral arbiter is not compatible with focusing on being "a fan of the PCs" if the latter is being interpreted as an actual, meaningful directive that you use a guiding principle when making decisions or rulings.

I think it is perfectly compatible if you're using a watered down version of "be a fan of the PCs" which really just means you're not actively antagonistic (because actively antagonistic is clearly not neutral either).

 

[pemerton]

I don't understand this emerging view that it is unreasonable for a RPG to set out principles for players and GMs.

It's not a new thing. It can be found in quite early RPG rulebooks, like Gygax's AD&D books and Moldvay Basic. I believe it is also found in recent D&D rulebooks (eg the DMG). I've found some on DnD Beyond.

The following is from p 114 of the Apocalypse World rulebook:

• Be a fan of the players’ characters. “Make the characters’ lives not boring” does not mean “always worse.” Sometimes worse, sure, of course. Always? Definitely not.

The worst way there is to make a character’s life more interesting is to take away the things that made the character cool to begin with. The gunlugger’s guns, but also the gunlugger’s collection of ancient photographs — what makes the character match our expectations and also what makes the character rise above them. Don’t take those away.

The other worst way is to deny the character success when the character’s fought for it and won it. Always give the characters what they work for! No, the way to make a character’s success interesting is to make it consequential. When a character accomplishes something, have all of your NPCs respond. Reevaluate all those PC–NPC–PC triangles you’ve been creating. Whose needs change? Whose opinions change? Who was an enemy, but now is afraid; who was an enemy, but now sees better opportunities as an ally? Let the characters’ successes make waves outward, let them topple the already unstable situation. There are no status quos in Apocalypse World! Even life doesn’t always suck.

“Make as hard and direct a move as you like” means just that. As hard and direct as you like. It doesn’t mean “make the worst move you can think of.” Apocalypse World is already out to get the players’ characters. So are the game’s rules. If you, the MC, are out to get them too, they’re plain [in trouble].

This goes for highlighting stats, too. When you highlight a character’s stats, try to choose one that’ll show off who the character is. Switch up often — for certain don’t just choose the lowest stat and stick with it — and try to make sure that the character usually has at least one high stat highlighted.​

As this indicates, the principle be a fan of the players' characters interacts with the principle make the players' characters' lives not boring. It helps guide how to make those lives not boring.

I don't see how it is supposed to be objectionable.

I also note that it is not a principle that would have any work to do in, say, GMing a module like Tomb of Horrors. It's a principle that, together with makes the players' characters' lives not boring, applies in the context of a particular RPG, that is a very long way away from ToH, in respect of intended play experience, particular techniques to be used, etc.

 

[SableWyvern]

I don't see how it is supposed to be objectionable.

In case there is any confusion, I don't object to it inasmuch as it's a perfectly valid way to run/play a game.

I will reject any claim that it's the best/only/proper way to run things.

Your character's collection of ancient photos isn't sacrosanct in my game, and I don't need the player's permission to mess with those photos. I won't just arbitrarily declare they're destroyed in a fire but, if there is a fire for some reason, then your photos may well burn.

 

[pemerton]

I will reject any claim that it's the best/only/proper way to run things.

And who has made that claim?