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

[Enrahim]

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.


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.


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.

I think you missed the context. This was purely about a particular kind of possible intepretation of a pharse sequence from monsterhearts: "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."

I further up acknowledged that this phrase could be interpreted in a way I was OK with, but that there was an ambiguity that could allow it for being (mis)read in a way I would find problematic. The post you replied to was my response to why I would find that interpretation problematic. It do hence in no way reflect on PbtA games in general and certainly not on your Jewel of the Desert campaign

 

[AlViking]

Then you pick a different possibility. Many, many of them have been brought up in this thread alone.

Like failing to pick the lock makes enough noise to wake someone up in another room while success does not? A guard or nosy neighbor noticing them on a failure but not on a success even though it does not take longer to fail than succeed? Because those are the only ones I remember. I may, of course, have missed some.

Because as far as I can tell the screaming cook is about as logical as any of the other reasons people have given. Which, if it's that easy to implement, it would take about as much time to give a better example as it does to tell people repeatedly that "we already told you."

 

[Emerikol]

But if the cook shows up in play, it’s because the GM introduced the cook… so how could the campaign world not have a cook?

Well that is the gist of it. Does the cook exist prior to seemingly popping into existence or is the cook just made up on the fly?

So some questions...
1. Are we debating the mechanism (the skill roll on lockpick)?
2. or are we debating bringing stuff in that is not in anyone's mind until the moment it shows up?

Which thing are we discussing? Because #2 has been rejected and it is a matter of taste. If it is #1 then I'd like to know a bit more.

 

[AlViking]

Such as what? It depends on so many factors. There’s not one answer. You use your creativity combined with whatever has been established to come up with something.

Without context, there’s no way to give you an answer.



But if the cook shows up in play, it’s because the GM introduced the cook… so how could the campaign world not have a cook?

Just any example at all from a recent game. Because as far as I can tell y'all will bend over backwards and change the rules of the game to make it happen and the screaming cook is a perfectly legitimate example, at least for D&D and similar games.

Ask me about any technique that I prefer and I can give you several examples off the top of my head, most from a recent game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just any example at all from a recent game. Because as far as I can tell y'all will bend over backwards and change the rules of the game to make it happen and the screaming cook is a perfectly legitimate example, at least for D&D and similar games.

Ask me about any technique that I prefer and I can give you several examples off the top of my head, most from a recent game.

You originally posted the below, which is what I responded to. Any instance of lock picking will have circumstances that matter to how the GM would resolve it, depending on the roll and procedures.

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?

If you’re instead asking for an example of fail forward from a recent game, I offered the examples from the 5e one shot I ran a couple weeks ago.

I’m running a Blades in the Dark game weekly. Success with complications or outright failure happen routinely. I could offer examples of those, but I’m not sure if they fit what you were requesting.

 

[zakael19]

Just any example at all from a recent game. Because as far as I can tell y'all will bend over backwards and change the rules of the game to make it happen and the screaming cook is a perfectly legitimate example, at least for D&D and similar games.

Ask me about any technique that I prefer and I can give you several examples off the top of my head, most from a recent game.

No no no, we did this already. I and others provided a whole set of potential outcomes with various fictional pathways and reactions and ways we might handle it in both PBTA and other systems. Specifically in response to your constant deluge of questions. You even responded directly to these examples.

Just because you don’t like them doesn’t make them less valid.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

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.

I have no problem with @EzekielRaiden example either. Such examples could be great play or not based on other aspects, but in general I agree it's FF and would probably be fine in general in a Narrativist context.

I'm not sure what your objections to SCs amount to. There's nothing 'bare bones' about them. I'd say they're nearly as elaborate as most combat systems. I can think of no reason why a check within an SC would be seen as less detailed than any other. Certainly 4e applies the same process and rules to every check. All that seems to be true is that some of the consequences or results may be deferred to ultimate SC resolution vs needing to be completely resolved instantly.

Like in the chase example, maybe some success gets you a better situation, but doesn't immediately capture the bad guy. Or likewise a failure just worsens your situation a bit, but doesn't let them get away. Chances are a less structured approach will be similar, except the GM is left winging it, or else home brewing basically an SC. Note that 4e does not preclude the latter either!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well that is the gist of it. Does the cook exist prior to seemingly popping into existence or is the cook just made up on the fly?

So some questions...
1. Are we debating the mechanism (the skill roll on lockpick)?
2. or are we debating bringing stuff in that is not in anyone's mind until the moment it shows up?

Which thing are we discussing? Because #2 has been rejected and it is a matter of taste. If it is #1 then I'd like to know a bit more.

I don’t know. I’m asking you because I don’t recall you having commented on it. Feel free to comment on either.

For number 2, I don’t think I agree about what’s in peoples’ minds before hand. But I also think that there are different approaches and it doesn’t really make sense to judge one approach according to the criteria of the other.

 

[AlViking]

No no no, we did this already. I and others provided a whole set of potential outcomes with various fictional pathways and reactions and ways we might handle it in both PBTA and other systems. Specifically in response to your constant deluge of questions. You even responded directly to these examples.

Just because you don’t like them doesn’t make them less valid.

Then perhaps stop people should stop saying we just don't understand or that the example I found was bad.

 

[Faolyn]

The problem is that's not that clearcut. What its more accurate to say is that the player doesn't believe its in character (or at least is convincing themselves and/or others it isn't). How well people will stand up to terrifying experiences is one of the things people assume will occur more consistently than it does. It may be that someone's view of the characters in adventure fiction is that they're more resistant to that, but that still doesn't make it a given.

A naturalistic view of characters shouldn't make people's reactions to a lot of high-stress things as determinist as many, maybe most players will do so; even if they don't end up fleeing or going berserk, it often should have some impact.

(Note: I'm not saying you or anyone has to want that, but I think its entirely defensible that morale and being convinced by people you don't think should convince you is as or more likely to be an accurate depiction of what would go on as the player purely deciding it from their perspective. Its just tricky to get it so the situational results are right and many people are super resistant to even trying).

Well, it's their character, so they should know if its in character or not. (And "it's what my character would do" is only a problem if the player is using it as an excuse to be an antisocial jerk.)

Assuming a game that's anything other than mostly normal people doing mostly normal people things, the PCs are people who experience terrifying experiences hundreds or thousands of times. They get used to it. If they're going to run away in terror, then they probably wouldn't have made it past their first few adventures. You can even assume that many of them are predisposed to not feeling the fear as strongly. Think of people who are terrified of spiders versus people who keep them as pets, or people who faint at the sight of blood or get sick if they see vomit versus people who aren't bothered by the ick at all.

Plus, a typical D&D-style PC been subjected to lots of head injuries, poisons, magical effects, etc. The "react like normal people" part of their brain is probably burned out simply from that.