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

[Emerikol]

Some posters assert that when the cook, or owlbear, or whatever is narrated as being there because the GM extrapolated it from their notes (as Maxperson did with the farrier) or because a random encounter is rolled, that is not "quantum"; but when the cook is narrated as being their as a consequence of a player's failed check that is "quantum". And I am saying that I do not see how one is more or less "quantum" than the other: they are all examples of something being written into the fiction here-and-now, by the GM, in response to some real-world prompt: be that a question from a player, a roll of the wandering monster dice, or a player's failed skill roll.

We could debate semantics but lets not. I'd just say there is a difference. The DM has established the monsters that could be roaming in a given area. He has chosen to let randomness determine whether the group just happens to run into them. I think that is different than something just popping into existence and could be as surprising to the DM as the players. There is something different about those two things in my view.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right Edit: would you?

Yeah, I love when stuff like that happens.

We could debate semantics but lets not. I'd just say there is a difference. The DM has established the monsters that could be roaming in a given area. He has chosen to let randomness determine whether the group just happens to run into them. I think that is different than something just popping into existence and could be as surprising to the DM as the players. There is something different about those two things in my view.

Why do you consider one "just popping into existence" but the others are present and "exist" all along?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We could debate semantics but lets not. I'd just say there is a difference.

"We could argue, but let's just agree I'm right."

How about...no?

Like I know you're genuinely trying to be peacemaker here, but your suggestion means asking us to simply surrender the point to you--simply agreeing that there's a difference without any evidence or discussion. That's not really kosher. It's been a core problem for the past dozen pages at least that there doesn't seem to be any difference here.

The DM has established the monsters that could be roaming in a given area.

The GM has established that servants could be roaming inside the chateau. (Literally, I was taking the role of the GM running a game for Lilia Blanc, possibly with other PCs as well.) Both because this is actually how real servants in medieval, renaissance, and (especially) early-modern manor houses actually did their jobs (hidden from sight, working while "the masters" are asleep, etc.), and because, as this is a game where heisting of some kind is a relevant part of the experience, the risk of discovery is clearly a desired and valuable part of the experience.

He has chosen to let randomness determine whether the group just happens to run into them.

I-as-GM have chosen to let the randomness of the lockpicking roll determine whether the group just happens to run into a servant as a result of taking too long to pick a lock, because being completely incapable of ever getting through a lock is legitimately unrealistic, as in, it literally doesn't correspond to how actual lockpicking works, while a lock being a stubborn bugger that takes waaaaay too long and thus puts you on the spot is quite realistic.

I think that is different than something just popping into existence and could be as surprising to the DM as the players. There is something different about those two things in my view.

Again with this "popping into existence" rhetoric. Would be real nice if folks stopped invoking this left and right, as though PbtA games were swiss-cheese all-retcons-all-the-time situations where facts fluidly change from true to false to true to false to true to false.

That's not how it works. They genuinely don't work that way. Things do not "pop into existence". Any information revealed as part of play is extrapolated from what we already know, or what is extremely reasonable and non-contradictory.

 

[Emerikol]

Yeah, I love when stuff like that happens.



Why do you consider one "just popping into existence" but the others are present and "exist" all along?

Because they exist in the DMs world. The DM has just decide to let randomness determine WHERE they are at vs if they exist at all. They are roaming somewhere where in the world. The DM has determined them to be actors in his campaign.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In these situations it is usually very easy to find something interesting to do. Usually quite easy to find something interesting that do not completely disregard safety as well. This advice seem very explicitely to encourage to grab one of these interesting ideas and just go with it - moving the game along in an ever thrilling rollercoaster - but missing out the chance of producing pure gold.

Well, that would be completely contradictory to some of the things I know @pemerton said in this very thread, where he spoke of the importance of character-development moments that are not high-octane pulse-pounding mile-a-minute action.

It seems to me that you are thus committing more or less the same error Lanefan did, all those thousands of posts ago; namely, mistakenly believing that an emphasis on avoiding the "boring" or on advancing the state of the fiction necessarily means never having anything contemplative, deliberative, or tactical, and instead always-and-exclusively doing...well. What I just referred to: high-octane pulse-pounding mile-a-minute action.

That's a very deeply mistaken understanding of all PbtA games, and based on what I have heard of the other systems pemerton has spoken about (such as Prince Valiant), a general flawed understanding of games of this type.

"Conflict" can be high-octane or slow-burn. It can be pulse-pounding or cerebral. It can be almost anything. The thing we are avoiding is not moments of reflection, composure, and contemplation. It is moments where, as stated, nothing actually happens. Ruminating on your deeds, realizing that what you thought you wanted isn't what you actually wanted? That stuff is, as you say, solid gold, and I have found the rules of Dungeon World to be very, very good at drawing out those moments--specifically because of their push toward moments of conflict, even if those moments of conflict are not necessarily moments of violence or action.

Three of the greatest moments in my current campaign came from a person making a moral choice and sticking to it, even if it would cost them, despite two of the three being 100% pure "just having a conversation with our allies" and the third being a spur-of-the-moment choice to try to "take a third option" (as TVTropes put it), to prove that his powers (which have rather dark origins) actually can make the world a genuinely better place, not through violence or aggression or speed, but through forgiveness tempered by justice.

I can understand how many find that (much) more exciting than my prefered kind of game. After all, even from early preeteen I recognised I was quite unusual in prefering long form chess over blitz.

Personally I have never been particularly good at any form of chess, but would very much dislike blitz.

For my own preferences, I want as many moments of agonizing choices, of profound personal revelation, of ideals tested and either found wanting or proven true to the last. I have found the rules we're speaking of here to be very, very, very good at cultivating those types of experiences, and to be in particular much better at it than most editions of D&D (or, indeed, most D&D-alike games) I've played.

And I realise now I can give you one concrete as well...... LEEEEEEEROY JENKINS!!!!!!!!

I can promise you, while that scene was manufactured for funnies, even if it were real? My Dungeon World game could not be further from this. If this were levied as an accusation, rather than being the "oh, here's an example of the problem I think is present here", I would honestly have felt pretty seriously offended, since...yeah, again, that couldn't possibly be further from the experience in Jewel of the Desert.

Pushing the story along doesn't mean nothing but pulse-pounding thrills. It means we don't dwell on moments where everyone is just standing around doing not-much-of-anything. "Ruminating on my values" is very, VERY much doing something--doing one of the absolute most important things, in fact. "Building or changing my connection(s) to my friends" is literally something Dungeon World specifically expects the players to do (and rewards them for doing it). Etc.

I give you my word, "LEEEEEROY JENKINS!!!" simply, flatly, does not describe the experience of any PbtA game I've played or run.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because they exist in the DMs world. The DM has just decide to let randomness determine WHERE they are at vs if they exist at all. They are roaming somewhere where in the world. The DM has determined them to be actors in his campaign.

Doesn't a DM who posits a healthy, functional "wealthy person's country estate" necessarily posit the existence of the many, many servants required to maintain such a thing...?

I don't understand how this isn't just "DMs should do prep work". Seems completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand.

 

[AlViking]

Doesn't a DM who posits a healthy, functional "wealthy person's country estate" necessarily posit the existence of the many, many servants required to maintain such a thing...?

I don't understand how this isn't just "DMs should do prep work". Seems completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand.

If you take away the assumption of a "wealthy person's country estate" how would it change anything? The real point of the scenario is that someone is trying to pick a lock and how the state of the world because of success or failure. So what if the lock was on a rundown estate that had been taken over by some local bandits? Or the family has fallen on hard time and doesn't have any servants any more?

There are many, many times when a character is going to be picking a lock and there aren't going to be any servants at all. What happens on a failure then?

 

[Emerikol]

"We could argue, but let's just agree I'm right."

How about...no?

Like I know you're genuinely trying to be peacemaker here, but your suggestion means asking us to simply surrender the point to you--simply agreeing that there's a difference without any evidence or discussion. That's not really kosher. It's been a core problem for the past dozen pages at least that there doesn't seem to be any difference here.

What does surrender even mean here? People see these things as different. That is an undeniable fact. Read the thread. You can argue all night but that won't change.

The GM has established that servants could be roaming inside the chateau. (Literally, I was taking the role of the GM running a game for Lilia Blanc, possibly with other PCs as well.) Both because this is actually how real servants in medieval, renaissance, and (especially) early-modern manor houses actually did their jobs (hidden from sight, working while "the masters" are asleep, etc.), and because, as this is a game where heisting of some kind is a relevant part of the experience, the risk of discovery is clearly a desired and valuable part of the experience.

For me it is a bit weird to have a lockpicking role perform this function but to each his own. I'd probably be rolling for a chance the cook is up or getting up or heard some noise independently. People can play however they like so no one is debating that point. I thought we were talking about games where an extra die or some combination of rolls resulted in something extra happening. I'm not inherently against this except I'd always want it going through the DM. Players can only affect the world through the actions of their characters.

I-as-GM have chosen to let the randomness of the lockpicking roll determine whether the group just happens to run into a servant as a result of taking too long to pick a lock, because being completely incapable of ever getting through a lock is legitimately unrealistic, as in, it literally doesn't correspond to how actual lockpicking works, while a lock being a stubborn bugger that takes waaaaay too long and thus puts you on the spot is quite realistic.

And that is fine.

Again with this "popping into existence" rhetoric. Would be real nice if folks stopped invoking this left and right, as though PbtA games were swiss-cheese all-retcons-all-the-time situations where facts fluidly change from true to false to true to false to true to false.

That's not how it works. They genuinely don't work that way. Things do not "pop into existence". Any information revealed as part of play is extrapolated from what we already know, or what is extremely reasonable and non-contradictory.

When something no one knew about at all appears in the game, I define that as popping into existence. It doesn't matter to me if the players or the DM use the back story to make the thing being popped more believable or not. It is still essentially being made up on the spot even if backstory acts as an input.

We've debated these things to death. I'm not sure what the point is as you keep thinking you've got some gotcha that will mysteriously make us start liking another style of play. It's like trying to season brussel sprouts differently. I still don't like brussel sprouts. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy them.

I guess I'm trying to understand what you hope to accomplish making these arguments.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because they exist in the DMs world. The DM has just decide to let randomness determine WHERE they are at vs if they exist at all. They are roaming somewhere where in the world. The DM has determined them to be actors in his campaign.

Isn’t that the same for the folks who live in the home being broken into?

There are many, many times when a character is going to be picking a lock and there aren't going to be any servants at all. What happens on a failure then?

Something else? Something that makes sense based on the context?

 

[Campbell]

If you take away the assumption of a "wealthy person's country estate" how would it change anything? The real point of the scenario is that someone is trying to pick a lock and how the state of the world because of success or failure. So what if the lock was on a rundown estate that had been taken over by some local bandits? Or the family has fallen on hard time and doesn't have any servants any more?

There are many, many times when a character is going to be picking a lock and there aren't going to be any servants at all. What happens on a failure then?

Something different that is consistent with what's been established, follows from the lockpicking fiction and the GM thinks would be compelling. There is no single answer that applies in all circumstances. Different fictional circumstances require different approaches, different judgements. The last would likely not require at all because there is no duress involved. We can talk about each in turn if you like.

At the table I'm not trying to resolve all attempts to pick a lock - just this one in this moment.