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

[Gimby]

There is no principle of "Don't make the game boring for the characters." The characters' lives are always going to be interesting if you are actually playing the game. There is a principle of, "Make the game fun/interesting for the players." These are different things.

Eh, no. As posted here to show as an example, the principle actually was "Make the result interesting for the players."

If you name a principle gooniegoogoo, but write about a principle of making the game interesting for the players, the principle is not gooniegoogoo.

Nope. I criticize parts of D&D all the time. It's not a perfect game. My objection has nothing to do with criticizing D&D.

Are we allowed to call principles what we like? Like Blorb, for example?

Secondarily, it's entirely possible for the game to be being played but both the players and characters to end up bored. For example, the characters are searching for a secret door. Due to other principles, the GM is not allowing for a dice roll here but is waiting for a player to make the appropriate action declaration for their character. For whatever reason, the characters aren't getting it and the players are making incorrect action declarations. Perhaps after an hour or so of this, only one player is making action declarations (I'd posit this is not uncommon as it's hard for a GM to concurrently resolve parallel declarations so falling into a conversation with one player is a very plausible play pattern). Most of the players are bored, the characters may be bored, the one player still making declarations may be frustrated (the Gates of Moria before the Watcher shows up may be the archetype of this, but I've certainly experienced it in live play). But the GM is holding true to a different principle of play - for example honouring prep and being a neutral arbiter of action declaration - that is more important than stopping things being boring for the characters. And these principles may be important for the entire group and underpin what they normally find enjoyable about the game. Perhaps having something disrupt this situation would reduce their enjoyment of the game overall - and that's completely fine. Doesn't change the fact that in this moment the players and characters are bored.

 

[Campbell]

So, the context for make the character's lives not boring is Apocalypse World instructing the GM to have every decision they make be in service to (and only in service to):

• Make the character's lives not boring.
• Make the Apocalypse World seem real.
• Play to find out what happens.

It's not reflecting on any other playstyle. It's not trying to speak to D&D players. It's saying there's a style of being the GM the rest of the game is built on where that is the sum total of your agenda as a GM. Note there is no be a neutral arbiter. There is no tell a story. There is no make sure the rest of the players have fun. Those three things are your only responsibility when you run Apocalypse World.

 

[Maxperson]

Are we allowed to call principles what we like? Like Blorb, for example?

I think Blorb is a silly name, but the principle isn't Blorb. The principle is what is described when you read Blorb.

If someone says I follow the Blorb principle, almost no one in this world will know what you are talking about. If you tell them you follow the principle of an eye for an eye, most will know it or be able to figure it out from the context.

It's the same with others. The principle isn't The Golden Rule. The principle is do unto others what you would want them to do unto you.

If they had called the The Golden Rule say, Do Whatever The Hell You Feel Like, it would be an issue because what it is named is very much not what the principle actually is.

This is the problem with the Make the Characters' Lives Interesting "principle." That's not what it does. The actual principle does something very different.

Secondarily, it's entirely possible for the game to be being played but both the players and characters to end up bored. For example, the characters are searching for a secret door. Due to other principles, the GM is not allowing for a dice roll here but is waiting for a player to make the appropriate action declaration for their character. For whatever reason, the characters aren't getting it and the players are making incorrect action declarations. Perhaps after an hour or so of this, only one player is making action declarations (I'd posit this is not uncommon as it's hard for a GM to concurrently resolve parallel declarations so falling into a conversation with one player is a very plausible play pattern). Most of the players are bored, the characters may be bored, the one player still making declarations may be frustrated (the Gates of Moria before the Watcher shows up may be the archetype of this, but I've certainly experienced it in live play).

First, this is an example of not playing the game right. It's not an example of a game being played correctly which would result in the character not being bored and hopefully the player not being bored.

Second, the character may not be bored in that scenario. The character is in some situation where he is adventuring or exploring a strange place or whatever, and is looking for a secret door. That doesn't sound like a boring situation in the fiction.

Which leads us to the real principle being discussed here, "Choose results that are interesting to the player." If the player is having fun, everything else works out more or less automatically.

But the GM is holding true to a different principle of play - for example honouring prep and being a neutral arbiter of action declaration - that is more important than stopping things being boring for the characters. And these principles may be important for the entire group and underpin what they normally find enjoyable about the game. Perhaps having something disrupt this situation would reduce their enjoyment of the game overall - and that's completely fine. Doesn't change the fact that in this moment the players and characters are bored.

It's all about being boring for the players, not the characters. The players are the ones that need to be interested and having fun. You can accomplish that easily and still be a neutral arbiter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And yet at the same time succeeded in making the climb he'd just rolled 'fail' on.

Thus, a 'fail' was turned by GM fiat into a 'success with complication'; and while this seems to have suited the situation in question at the time, it still doesn't honour that original 'fail' roll.

Now had the roll in fact been merely to determine how long the climb took, with actual climb success already guaranteed, that'd be different, as in that case failure would indeed mean it took too long.

No. As it was my game, I'm going to explain it to you. I already have done that, but I know this is a long thread with many different tangents... but after this clarification, I am going to expect you to proceed accordingly. I don't want to see you describing my example of play in a way other than how it was again.

The characters came to a cliff. I explained to them that it did not look like it would be a particularly difficult clime based on the surface and other observable factors... that the issue was more how much time it would take. The destination they were trying to reach was one where a dark ritual was due to be performed... ideally, they'd get there before the ritual was completed.

So, before they rolled, I explained that the risk here is that the climb takes too long, and the ritual will be that much closer to completion. I had used a Clock to indicate the ritual being completed. A Clock is a simple visual indicator... a pie chart... where you fill in slices to represent a countdown. I told them I would tick the clock (fill in one of the 6 slices) for each of them that failed the check. I provided the DC and allowed them to consider using any abilities or items that may have assisted them (as I recall, they didn't have or choose to use anything).

They made their rolls. One of them failed. I ticked one section of the Clock as the consequence of the failed roll.

This was a failure. There was a known consequence. I inflicted that consequence. That's honoring the roll.

And we also want their peril to be reduced. As it's not our production to control, we can't do that with a movie or novel; as GMs running games, however, we can. It's a temptation we have to resist; and the easiest means for doing so is to be a detached neutral arbiter rather than a fan of anyone.

No, we don't. As an audience member, I don't want to see Frodo's peril reduced. I want to see him persevere in spite of all the danger.

As players, we can place our characters into danger, and we should do so. We don't have to do so without any consideration for their safety or well-being... but the principle is telling us that's not our primary concern. Our primary concern is to make things interesting... to pursue their goals and make a mess of things from time to time.

As GMs, our job is to put adversity in the way of their goals. To make things hard for them, yes... but also to make things enjoyable for them. Certainly, the respite at Rivendell is not boring, from the perspective of the audience. Interesting things are learned and happen there. Friends are made and alliances formed. It's not all about the bad.

Have you met some of the hard-core fanbases of franchises like Star Wars, Star Trek, or Tolkein?

Yes, and they are clowns. I can't account for extremists... I'm just going to speak about rational people.

So, someone who doesn't like something is supposed to just bow out quietly rather than speaking in opposition to that which they don't like?

Sorry, but that ain't how discussion works.

No, that's not what's being said. @AlViking has pointed out repeatedly what his preferences are. Anyone involved with this thread with any kind of regularity would have been hard pressed to miss him point out his preferences. They're known.

When it comes to "fail forward" he said this:

Then all I can say is that it's just a preference and I don't see why it's hard to accept that I don't like fail forward as a concept.

So if literally all he has to say is that it's a preference and he doesn't like it... then mission accomplished.

The suggestion to not engage any more is because he seems perturbed by engaging with that topic.

 

[AlViking]

No, that's not what's being said. @AlViking has pointed out repeatedly what his preferences are. Anyone involved with this thread with any kind of regularity would have been hard pressed to miss him point out his preferences. They're known.

When it comes to "fail forward" he said this:


So if literally all he has to say is that it's a preference and he doesn't like it... then mission accomplished.

The suggestion to not engage any more is because he seems perturbed by engaging with that topic.

The reason I asked a question was because everyone for some reason has now decided that the lockpicking can only happen on a wealthy estate with multiple servants who apparently work 24 hours a day. I was curious if the answers changed if the scenario changed. Or if people would ever clearly state whether the cook would have been in the kitchen even if the lockpicking attempt had been successful.

But I shouldn't bother asking these kind of questions since most people on the fail forward side aren't even playing D&D and are playing games that work on different principles or are unwilling to answer* with actual examples.

*With the exception of @Faolyn. Their examples were a guard dog, breaking lockpicks or somehow hurting themselves. I don't see the guard dog as any different from the cook - either they're an obstacle either way or they're not. Breaking lockpicks or hurting themselves is to me just an extra penalty where I don't see how it's moving the narrative forward. Even so, I did appreciate it even if I was in a hurry before and forgot to say it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We've been talking about a highly skilled thief. But you know what, it's irrelevant if I've added master, because "master" doesn't change the issue. The issue is there whether it's a skilled thief, very skilled thief, or master thief.

Focusing on master to ignore the actual issue is a Red Herring.

I curse the name of the person that taught you what a Red Herring is.

So the cook is in that room ready to react to the door opening regardless of success?

No, because on a success, the thief was quiet enough to not draw her attention.

I feel like someone dosed me.

There is no principle of "Don't make the game boring for the characters." The characters' lives are always going to be interesting if you are actually playing the game. There is a principle of, "Make the game fun/interesting for the players." These are different things.

The principle as it appears in Monsterhears is "Make each main character's life not boring". That's literally the principle in the book that it is telling the players and GM to keep in mind. To make decisions with that as a primary factor.

But this is guidance for that game (and others that share it), not necessarily every game. While I might try to GM by this principle when I play 5e, it's not something that's always easy to do, and it's not something I'd expect most others to do since it's not in the book at all.

Not all principles work for all games. "Be a neutral arbiter" doesn't work for Monsterhearts or Apocalypse World.

Nope. I criticize parts of D&D all the time. It's not a perfect game. My objection has nothing to do with criticizing D&D.

You literally posted that the principle was implying that other games were boring.

That's bias for the characters, not being a neutral arbiter.

If I have a challenging encounter set up and they get there and through great ideas and/or planning make it an easy encounter, that's awesome. Good for them. If they get there and haven't done anything particularly effective and it's a challenging fight, good for them. If they get there and they've bungled things and a PC dies or there's a TPK. Bummer.

I have no hope for them to do any of those. I just set the stage and enjoy watching it play out, and enjoy when my players are having a good time.

Yes, this is why the principles have been suggested as being oppositional. That you cannot be a neutral arbiter and be working to make the characters' lives not boring. There may be times where they don't conflict, but there will be times when they do.

If you're running prep-focused D&D, then it makes sense to consider the principle "be a neutral arbiter" as more important.

If you're running Apocalypse World, then it makes sense to consider the principle "make the characters' lives not boring".

It's just how different games approach play. Neither is better or worse. That the words "not boring" appear in one doesn't mean that it's saying others are boring.

 

[AlViking]

I curse the name of the person that taught you what a Red Herring is.



No, because on a success, the thief was quiet enough to not draw her attention.

I feel like someone dosed me.



The principle as it appears in Monsterhears is "Make each main character's life not boring". That's literally the principle in the book that it is telling the players and GM to keep in mind. To make decisions with that as a primary factor.

But this is guidance for that game (and others that share it), not necessarily every game. While I might try to GM by this principle when I play 5e, it's not something that's always easy to do, and it's not something I'd expect most others to do since it's not in the book at all.

Not all principles work for all games. "Be a neutral arbiter" doesn't work for Monsterhearts or Apocalypse World.



You literally posted that the principle was implying that other games were boring.



Yes, this is why the principles have been suggested as being oppositional. That you cannot be a neutral arbiter and be working to make the characters' lives not boring. There may be times where they don't conflict, but there will be times when they do.

If you're running prep-focused D&D, then it makes sense to consider the principle "be a neutral arbiter" as more important.

If you're running Apocalypse World, then it makes sense to consider the principle "make the characters' lives not boring".

It's just how different games approach play. Neither is better or worse. That the words "not boring" appear in one doesn't mean that it's saying others are boring.

When I am setting up the scenarios I think the characters could face I am not being neutral. I'm trying to set up challenging and interesting things for the players to interact with. When I'm adjudicating the result of an action I do my best to be neutral.

 

[Maxperson]

I curse the name of the person that taught you what a Red Herring is.

No, because on a success, the thief was quiet enough to not draw her attention.

When they unlocked the lock. Not when they open the door and the cook is standing there. And you still haven't explained why a skilled thief trying to be quiet becomes a Keystone Cop and makes a ton of noise on a failure to open the lock. You've claimed it makes sense, but I'm not seeing it.

Yes, this is why the principles have been suggested as being oppositional. That you cannot be a neutral arbiter and be working to make the characters' lives not boring. There may be times where they don't conflict, but there will be times when they do.

100% false. The character's lives have never been boring in my games. And yet I'm a neutral arbiter. There's never a conflict, because their lives aren't boring no matter what comes up in the game.

If you're running prep-focused D&D, then it makes sense to consider the principle "be a neutral arbiter" as more important.

If you're running Apocalypse World, then it makes sense to consider the principle "make the characters' lives not boring".

Again, not mutually exclusive things. The character's lives aren't boring in my game. Ever. At least if the principle is, "make the characters' lives not boring." Now if the principle is really, "Have the result of a roll be interesting to the player(s)," that might be in conflict sometimes. But you keep saying that's not the principle.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is that rules like morale or Persuasion checks is that they make people play not in character. They have to run away because the dice say they do, not because it's in character for them to run away. They have to believe an NPC or accept someone's arguments because the dice say they do, not because the NPC is actually believable or made a good point.

In other words, you stop playing your character and let the dice play them instead.

In D&D, and many other games, most of the time (there are a few exceptions) when a character is forced to run away or believe an NPC, it's because there's magic involved. Or if not actually magic, then something that is pretty darn close: a dragon's roar may (or may not) be magical in nature, but it's a creature nearly as big as a football field that is angry at you in particular. Some games even specify that fear effects should be limited to supernatural events--both GURPS and SWADE make a note of that, for instance.

Except that the determination to not run away has nothing to do with playing "in character" but, with whatever is most advantageous to the player. Running away makes a LOT of sense when a beholder just disintegrated your friend. Running away when you are already wounded and baddies are closing in is very much in character. Believing an NPC or not because you Dungeon Master doesn't make what you feel, not your character, what YOU feel, is a compelling argument is 100% not playing "in character".

The dice provide the direction. You provide the script. By never allowing the dice to determine the mental state of your character and insisting that you, and only you, can ever do that, combined with the fact that you just said that players will never accept any outcome that is disadvantageous to themselves, means that no player actually ever plays in character. Players will always do the cost/benefit analysis and choose the best option. That's not "method acting". That's very much not playing a personality.

To me, not allowing for the dice to influence how a character behaves is far more immersive breaking. It means that characters act very implausibly all the time.

 

[Faolyn]

Except, like I said, people are bad about predicting this sort of thing even about themselves, let alone a fictional character. People break in combat or get fast talked all the time who don't think they would.



Over time, sure. Right at the start of play? Maybe, maybe not. Personally my feeling on that is to have something like what Eclipse Phase calls "hardening", which you accumulate over time if you keep hitting the same rough kind of stressors, or, if you think you've already done so in the past enough, can buy as part of character generation (though there's a price associated with that in having more distance from other people and making it harder to use most interaction skills against them).




If they consistently were going to, sure. But this sort of thing isn't that consistent. The same guy who will break one time manages to hang on the next. That's why we do these things with dice and not automatically.

The problem then is that you want consistent rules for something that, as you say, isn't consistent.

Trauma--long term type trauma, like what you're talking about--should be an opt-in experience for several reasons. If its enforced via a die roll, then as I said before, it prevents you from playing your character because the dice have taken over. Many players don't want their characters to be burdened with this sort of trauma because they want to be playing a heroic game, or a game where everyday issues don't need to be tracked--they signed up for D&D, not Monster: the Angsting. And unless it's really well done, it's going to be insulting and/or triggering to people who actually have traumatic issues. Especially those who play D&D-alikes to escape them.

But really, only my first issue in the above paragraph is important in the context of this thread, which is that mundane morale and persuasion checks prevent players from actually playing in character because they take that decision away from the player and put it on dice. And because neither you, the GM nor the game's designers know what is actually frightening to by character or what would successfully persuade them.

If you want to have that in-game, then do it the way a lot of narrative games do it--have questions for the characters to answer during chargen. What events or situations would truly scare you? (Not "do they?" but "something would scare you; what is it?). Then use that.

When it comes time for an NPC to try to persuade the PC, ask them "this NPC seems very trustworthy"--a high roll here on their Persuade or Deception check--"what about them do you find most persuasive?" They should then be basing their answers on how you've portrayed the NPC.