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

[AlViking]

But that NPC will likely only be present in the campaign for a tiny fraction of time. That PC will be present (barring unforeseen circumstances) in every scene throughout the campaign. There's no difference in the scale. That NPC loses 100% of their agency, but, that's okay because you have so many NPC's. That PC loses agency, but, that's okay because you have so many interactions and time with that character.

Again, I'm failing to see the difference. In both cases, you're losing a "microfractional" amount of agency.

Again, nothing about this is forcing you to play your character in a way that is untrue to the character. It's that the mechanics provide the direction. How you interpret that direction is still up to you.

I'll admit though, I'm in the minority here. This ship has sailed a LONG time ago. There's no way that the fandom will ever allow this sort of thing in baseline D&D. Granted, in my current campaign, I have insanity rules, which means it's entirely plausible that your character will act in all sorts of bizarre fashions. And, I like games like FATE where you have Aspects and the DM can invoke that Aspect to compel you to play the character you created. Huge fan of those sorts of mechanics.

In my game we roll dice to resolve uncertainty. If I have enough detail on an NPC to know how they will react an intimidation or persuasion roll will not change their attitude. On the other hand, the miscellaneous shopkeeper, guard or other NPC that will only have 15 minutes of fame I usually haven't spent much time thinking about who they are. If I am playing a character and I'm uncertain how they would react I'll roll the dice myself.

Deception and similar rolls are not telling the target of the attempt what they think, it's to determine whether or not they see through the attempt at deception.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not great with IT, I tend to use Discord, but the positives are

• One can get through material rather rapidly in a short space of time
• It is very useful when the party is split, so 1-2 players. I use it particularly when I know it is likely to be a less combat heavy so ToM or no combat.
• No catering or cleaning up if you are the predominant host (which I am). This saves you on much time.

Otherwise, my games are very much face-to-face.

Regarding your trip to NZ there are at least 3 New Zealanders on the forums which I know.
Pemerton I believe is in Australia.

I did like using the line of sight and darkness/fog rules with Roll20, especially in cases where the party got split up a bit and suddenly didn't just happen to go in the right direction. Being in an area of darkness was much more effective when I could just ping the general area of enemies. But the lack of direct connection just didn't work for me.

At one point I had a DM that ran Curse of Strahd on Maps and we followed along on our devices even though we were in person. It was odd, but it was somehow just not the same as using a battle mat and minis. Not really sure why. I guess my ideal might be an in-person game with a game table with built-in screen we all shared, but then you still have people staring at their screens more than we already do. In addition my wife likes to game as well but I'm not sure she's quite ready to give up our kitchen table just yet.

 

[clearstream]

I very much disagree. It is not FF.

Upthread I listed features of implementations of fail forward that I have observed in various games. It is a version of fail forward, taking into account that, as others have emphasized, the use in play is informed by context, including principles undergirding the mode.

The innovation is not being co-opted. It's being abused. Biiiiiig difference.

It's not being abused, and on this we might just need to agree to disagree.

To me the proper use of game mechanics in play is something that can only be normed locally, so that I can say that if I want to use fail forward properly in game Y, then I ought to do X (apply it as that game expects.) I can't see what the justification is aside from tradition or preference for the narrower, I ought to want to use fail forward as it is properly applied in game Y.

 

[AnotherGuy]

...most people don't like losing all of their agency and being forced to roleplay in a very out of character manner.

This is true.

There some interesting ways to still give some agency to players.
If a PC is affected by something that robs them of agency it helps, I feel, to turn it around in a positive way.

So for instance..
* The big bad tough barbarian is suddenly overcome with dragon fear, ask the player how that fear manifests visually and mentally for their character. It is as if if you are handing back some of the agency by letting them describe how it affects their character (or even why - if you allow them to dig/create background material). It is great for creating memorable roleplaying moments.
Importantly this is all mechanics aside.

* If someone is dominated, they're sharing thoughts with the invader, give them opportunities via the fiction and if you want through mechanics of gleaning information about the invader etc.
i.e. you could run it as though the PC is dominated, but the invader can suffer from Detect Thoughts.
You could take it further and have the entire experience materialise a temporary or permanent TIBF.
You could have the character fighting against the domination in minor ways that play out physically.
You could have internal dialogue occurring between the PC and the invader while the PC's body is dominated.
These are a few examples of giving back character agency in interesting ways during times when they lose agency.

EDIT: Now none of this is RAW but it is part of being a fan of the player and character and just one idea of trying to make things not boring, I feel.

 

[TwoSix]

Oh look, that goalpost wizzed past again. Not sure if its a US goalpost or a UK one though.


I am pretty sure they asked for you to supply ONE example from D&D, not only examples from D&D. The point being, if you can only give examples from games that are not D&D, then then there is nothing to indicate it applies in D&D. Or I am allowed to Castle in Checkers?

I've certainly used it in 3.5, PF, 4e, and 5e. It's fairly trivial to use.

"Oh, you failed your arcana check to identify the runes? They're definitely runes of demon summoning, and you've triggered them!"

 

[Maxperson]

I trust them to act in good faith absent any of those mechanics, and hope I've earned the same trust in return when it comes to running my NPCs. As such, I see no need for said mechanics and so out the window they go.

The problem I'm having with your way of playing is that there are billions of NPCs out there and I cannot know more than a very small handful well enough to play out what they would or would not do in a given situation. The overwhelming majority of them will just have an alignment at best, and often not even that if they've wandered up to some farm in the middle of nowhere to get a farmer to do something for them.

The dice allow the attempt to persuade the NPC to do something to happen in the absence of my knowledge of the NPC.

The same doesn't apply to the players, because they DO know their PCs very well, since they generally only have one of them and have given them deep personalities, backgrounds, etc.

For those important NPCs that I do detail out, if the PCs would try to get them to do(or not do) something that I know from my detailed personality that the NPC would never do, the PCs' attempts would just automatically fail. Conversely, if I know that the attempt would automatically succeed, it does. Per the rules it's only when the outcome is in doubt that a roll is made, and that applies to social skills vs. NPCs as much as it does a climb check.

 

[Gimby]

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.

How is it not playing the game right? All prep is being honoured. All mechanical interactions are being resolved in accordance with the principles and rules agreed by the table. All action declarations are being made in good faith and are being resolved in good faith. The location may be one that is fairly mundane or one that that has already been picked over for interest by the party. And yet, the characters and players are bored. Again, I've experienced this at a live table, it can certainly happen. This is a No True Scotsman if we are playing fallacy bingo.

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.

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.

Right - the idea here is that any principles, strongly held, have fail cases. Being a neutral arbiter may (may not must!) lead to situations where the table is bored. "Filling the characters lives with adventure" may lead to feeling of broken immersion due to the contrivances present. No principles are immune to failure like this, it's just a matter of picking the ones your group is generally happy with and recognising where these failure states may (may not must!) occur.

-edit grammar

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Upthread I listed features of implementations of fail forward that I have observed in various games. It is a version of fail forward, taking into account that, as others have emphasized, the use in play is informed by context, including principles undergirding the mode.

Well. All I can say is, I have an extremely low opinion of whatever "principles" undergird railroading. But I will emphasize that "railroading", as I use the term, isn't a good thing. It's inherently manipulative, though not necessarily deceptive. People who knowingly and openly want a linear adventure, and who thus receive a linear adventure, are not being railroaded. They're being given exactly what they sought. Railroading is the act of enforcing a linear adventure in defiance of player interest. Sometimes this is enforced via pretense, deceiving players into thinking the adventure isn't linear when it is; that's illusionism. The thing you described is an example thereof: deceiving players into thinking that their choices affect the direction of play when they don't.

It's not being abused, and on this we might just need to agree to disagree.

Anything used to make it easier to deceive players into believing they're getting an experience different from what they're actually getting is, as far as I'm concerned, axiomatically being abused.

To me the proper use of game mechanics in play is something that can only be normed locally, so that I can say that if I want to use fail forward properly in game Y, then I ought to do X (apply it as that game expects.) I can't see what the justification is aside from tradition or preference for the narrower, I ought to want to use fail forward as it is properly applied in game Y.

Some norms are local, certainly.

"Deceiving your players into thinking they're getting a game they aren't" is one of the kind that is a problem regardless, because in every local environment, it is equally a problem.

 

[Maxperson]

This is true.

There some interesting ways to still give some agency to players.
If a PC is affected by something that robs them of agency it helps, I feel, to turn it around in a positive way.

So for instance..
* The big bad tough barbarian is suddenly overcome with dragon fear, ask the player how that fear manifests visually and mentally for their character. It is as if if you are handing back some of the agency by letting them describe how it affects their character (or even why - if you allow them to dig/create background material). It is great for creating memorable roleplaying moments.
Importantly this is all mechanics aside.

* If someone is dominated, they're sharing thoughts with the invader, give them opportunities via the fiction and if you want through mechanics of gleaning information about the invader etc.
i.e. you could run it as though the PC is dominated, but the invader can suffer from Detect Thoughts.
You could take it further and have the entire experience materialise a temporary or permanent TIBF.
You could have the character fighting against the domination in minor ways that play out physically.
You could have internal dialogue occurring between the PC and the invader while the PC's body is dominated.
These are a few examples of giving back character agency in interesting ways during times when they lose agency.

EDIT: Now none of this is mechanised but it is part of being a fan of the player and character and just one idea of trying to make things not boring, I feel.

In my game I don't bother asking them, because if they fail a roll to dragon fear, they will tell me how their character is reacting on their own.

Also, my issue isn't with supernatural effects like dragon fear or domination, but with persuasion checks and intimidation. If the big, bad, fearless(normal fear, not supernatural) barbarian is confronted by a small angry 8 year old NPC child who rolls a successful intimidation check, the barbarian should not be forced to describe to me any type of fear at all, because there's no way that child would successfully intimidate him.

The player would be the one to decide if it worked, if it didn't work, if it didn't work but he played along to try and mollify the child, or whatever else. The d20 should have no part in that decision.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We can either discuss platitudes and vague proclamations or we can discuss actual examples and details of how things work in a real game. Lately people simply insist "We already gave examples" but the only example I remember was from @hawkeyefan of rolling to see how long it takes to climb a cliff. Which is discussed in the DMG under Trying Again as "If failure has no consequences and a character can try and try again ... call for a single ability check and use the result to determine how long it takes for the character to complete the task." It's also similar to how I've described retries on picking a lock. They don't seem to fit the fail forward idea.

That was not the situation, though. It wasn't that there were no consequences and the character could try again and again. What I did was not what you are describing.