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

[Faolyn]

I don't remember the last time I used the word "quantum" to describe the cook. On the other hand the cook only exists because of the failed check, if the cook was always there they'd always be an obstacle to overcome whether the check to open the lock was successful or not.

It's not "conservative" to acknowledge that I have a different preference and approach to the game.

It is, however, when you consistently use strawmen and bad examples to prove your point. I don't even care if you don't actually understand it; it's when you deliberately misconstrue it that I have a problem.

 

[pemerton]

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 that fits the fiction.

Such as?

What's your example scenario?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then provide examples. I've been told the one I provided is terrible so come up with something a better example.

Okay. How much leeway am I permitted for developing advance information? Very very little in DW (which is the specific PbtA game I'll be building this from, since it's the one I've run for several years and know best) ever occurs without preceding context. The only thing that doesn't occur with (as much) starting context is whatever things begin at the very very start with, since (naturally) there hasn't been between 1 and umpteen prior sessions to establish that context.

I assume you will want examples of lock-picking that occurs in the two scenarios you laid out--a house which is known to have fallen on hard times and thus have no servants present (bit unrealistic, since a large house with no servants would likely just be shuttered rather than lived-in, and thus the whole scenario has completely changed, but I digress), and a building of some kind (unlikely to be a country estate) which was once a large residence but is now an abandoned building taken over by (semi-)organized ne'er-do-wells? Are there any other scenarios you would like me to explore?

I'll warn you, even by my usual standards this reply will almost certainly be very long, because I'm going to be examining at least two very different scenarios and exploring a variety of possible pathways GMs could take things. The actual number is "nigh infinite", but I know you want specific, concrete possibilities, so that would be my focus.

 

[Faolyn]

I simply don't see that as a problem. I see that as good design.

I find the game more interesting when my role is to depict the character as they develop, rather than have 100% agency over exactly what the definition of the character is at all times.

Edit: If "good design" is too normative, substitute in "design that I prefer and seek out".

How is it good design to have your ability to make decisions about your characters actions taken away from you because of die rolls?

Now, in GURPS, there are disadvantages that would make it so you're gullible or trusting or cowardly. But you choose to take those disadvantages, and at what level of severity. That's perfectly fine, design-wise, because it's your choice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We're not talking about attack rolls here. We're talking about failing morale rolls and persuasion checks and thus being forced to flee or believe an NPC.

Failing a saving throw can get you killed, but we accept those, and that's about as permanent a removal of character volition as you can get.

(I'm not trying to strawman you here or anything, I'm just noting that there are mechanical processes far more far reaching in effect than whether a character failed a morale check when confronted with something that evoked one. That doesn't mean that kind of thing can't be poorly handled, but then, so is "fail one climbing check and you fall to your death" and some people and systems seem to think that's appropriate too. That's just a case of really bad implementation in both cases).

 

[Faolyn]

Agreed. My issue with such rules is that they're asymmetrical; that they apply to NPCs but not to PCs.

Sultion: take those rules out completely so they don't apply to anyone.

The GM has more power than the players do, even in the most player-friendly of games. These rules are here to prevent an imbalance of power.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How is it good design to have your ability to make decisions about your characters actions taken away from you because of die rolls?

Now, in GURPS, there are disadvantages that would make it so you're gullible or trusting or cowardly. But you choose to take those disadvantages, and at what level of severity. That's perfectly fine, design-wise, because it's your choice.

I know this is a not-uncommon line some folks draw (and to be clear, I understand why its one as it involves buy-in from the player), but in a lot of cases those sorts of things aren't all-or-nothing (I don't remember if they are with GURPS but I suspect at least some of them are modifiers). They still accept that not every decision is going to be entirely within the player's choice. After all, even if you took a "Trusting" disadvantage, there still needs to be some sense on the GM's part of what the limits of that are (it at least shouldn't be completely unlimited), and at that point how is "The opponent is convincing because it says so right in this skill they bought" not okay when you don't have trusting, but someone much less capable able to pull it off is okay if you did? There should be cases in both examples where its just not going to work, its just more likely in the case of the Trusting character than the one who isn't (and probably even less with someone who's bought some ability that makes it hard for them to be played).

It just seems a very binary view of the process to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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!

The best usage of SCs--which I have actually seen, from real GMs, including one who was running his very first 4e campaign with almost exclusively old-school experience prior, great campaign, still miss it--recognizes that a spectrum of possibilities, from the hardest of hard failure to the greatest of great success, is the best choice. By creating a structure in which things occur, rather than freewheeling it, you both build tension and set the parameters for why a success should be "only barely limping across the finish line" vs "with flying colors", or why a failure should be "you didn't get what you wanted, but second place ain't too bad" vs "you have nothing but an obscure clue and a prayer". Just like how a hit-point pool and damage numbers set out why it should be that a monster dies at a specific point, rather than being determined by the freewheeling "when the GM feels like the monster should be dead".

Various ways to do this exist, some of them sticking almost exclusively to the SC rules as written, some extending well beyond it. Good (or bad) rolls on well-fitting skills might carry more weight. Blowing a roll out of the park (or flubbing a roll very badly) might matter. Taking an action that simply succeeds because it so obviously has to succeed it doesn't need a roll? That's a goldmine, love that stuff as both a player and a GM. (Once got a success without a roll on a skill challenge to (a) convince a sci-fantasy setting CEO to accompany us and then (b) escape without him getting injured/killed, because my Paladin character spoke with perfect honesty, both admitting ignorance about something that wasn't great for us and then stating without hesitation his commitment to protecting said CEO. The guy knew my character would not lie, that it quite literally wasn't in his nature, so no Diplomacy roll needed. Awesome moment, really sold how being a straight shooter that people know to be a straight shooter actually matters a lot.)

You can also introduce collateral damage or secondary objectives which are sensitive to the degree of success, or play with the number formula a little (e.g. maybe the group needs to accomplish five tasks and has only a finite number of attempts to get those tasks done, rather than "succeed X times before 3 fails"). Further, every single time the characters act, regardless of whether they succeed or fail, it should change something significant about the current situation. Stabilizing a crashing space station, for example (another actual SC!), my character took an action which didn't contribute to success directly but massively helped our ability to coordinate: the Paladin utility power One Heart, One Mind, which grants 100' (20 square) range telepathy to all nearby allies when used, and makes one's own Aid Another provide a +4 bonus instead of +2. My character didn't know much that would be useful other than piloting skills, but his race was made to be commanders, builders, and warriors, so coordinating others toward a common goal was quite literally coded into his DNA. That action, despite involving no roll and not directly addressing or failing to address a problem, changed the state of play, as now everyone could telepathically interact, and would get a very sizable benefit from the advice or guidance my character could grant as a leader. And we did end up saving the station, but it was a bit of a close call and some residents didn't make it.

 

[Maxperson]

Have you read the rules text (which I posted upthread)?

Here is is again:

​

So, as you can see, it is not redundant at all. It complements the principles Make the players' characters' lives not boring by guiding and constraining how that should be done: rather than making their lives not boring by taking away key elements of the character and/or their victories, the GM is directed to focus on the effects that the characters and their victories have on the in-fiction circumstances, especially the PC-NPC-PC triangles.

This also ties back to @Campbell's connection of the principle to "fail forward", some way upthread: those PC-NPC-PC triangles, and the broader idea that "there are no status quos in Apocalypse World", are directly related to the idea of the in-game situation having trajectories of threat and promise, which the GM draws on in various ways to establish consequences, frame scenes and the like.

Whoever that was can't tell the difference between a character and a player, because all of that advice is about entertaining the player. The character's life was already not boring, so none of those is actually need in order to "make the players' characters' lives not boring."

Fail forward. Hard moves. Not taking away the characters collection that the player wants the character to have, etc. are about making the game fun and interesting for the player. None of that actually takes a bored(since the character wasn't bored) character and makes it not bored.

Whether or not they make for fun play is a separate question. Obviously plenty of people find Apocalypse World fun, but there are some - presumably including several posters in this thread - who would not find it fun.

You seem to think that the phrase that carries all the weight, in "Make the players' character's lives not boring", is not boring. You give little or no weight to the word lives.

That's because "not boring" is the key there, not "lives." Remove "not boring" and see if it makes sense. Let's see, "Make the players' character's lives." That makes no sense. "Lives" isn't the key part of that.

In any case, the wording that comes after is all about the player not being bored or frustrated. Super hard moves, taking away their characters' favorite things, etc. are things that could frustrate and/or bore the player.

 

[Maxperson]

Failing a saving throw can get you killed, but we accept those, and that's about as permanent a removal of character volition as you can get.

Those, unless they are mind control, don't force the character to do something. Dead just means that I make a new character, or if death is just whack a mole like some games have, a pause before I can resume deciding what my character can do. Same with unconsciousness. Neither of those forces me to say or do something the character would not ever have done absent that roll.

(I'm not trying to strawman you here or anything, I'm just noting that there are mechanical processes far more far reaching in effect than whether a character failed a morale check when confronted with something that evoked one.

Death is farther reaching for sure, but it's not in the same category as social skills, so it's not comparable.