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

[clearstream]

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.

This seems like another example of jumping to the worst possible example and critiquing on that basis. In which light I ought not to play roleplaying games: they're horrific!

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.

Is it right that you are worried that fail forward can be used by a GM to advance the situation along a preordained trajectory?

"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.

Any such problem is with the deceiving, not with using fail forward. Player "I roll 5", GM "You find a poorly concealed secret door." How does the player in that scenario know they were not deceived? It hardly seems necessary to revert to fail forward to manage illusionism.

 

[clearstream]

As a game mechanic, this is simple- it's a matter of narration and consequences. 15 and higher is a narration of success (DC15! Woot!). But you've also included a lower DC (10, in this case) - and if that DC is made, then there is a success, but there is a narration of consequences. What consequences? That's dependent on the established world. If the party is trying to be stealthy, maybe the opening of the lock succeeds, but it's noisy and attracts attention.

Rules for this are found in the 5e DMG: success at a cost.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Rules for this are found in the 5e DMG: success at a cost.

NO ONE READS THE DMG!

I tried to open it once ...

...it didn't work out.

 

[clearstream]

I don't know what you intend by "fail forward at a mechanical level".

By mechanics I mean

rolling some dice and identifying a success or failure on the roll

The specifics of which differ per game, such as trinary versus binary outcomes, and

the process and heuristics used to narrate the consequence if... the roll fails

To the extent that they are expressly stated in the game text and tied to "the roll fails".

Other principles may also bear on how the above is played. These will be broader... applicable to play beyond solely narration of consequences when the roll fails.

 

[clearstream]

NO ONE READS THE DMG!

I tried to open it once ...

View attachment 410827

...it didn't work out.

First word in the DMG, "Nikto"...

Would have saved the world a great deal of bother if you'd only just read it.

 

[Lanefan]

This kind of play, I feel, is fostered because of D&D where the overwhelming real consequence in the game is PC Death (even for NPCs). Lesser consequences are mitigated or ignored in service to the Hit Point god.
So rational (always optimal) decision making is rewarded.

Only to a point. There comes a time when over-analysis becomes dull; thankfully there's always players with low-ish boredom thresholds who, when they get bored, will have their characters (who also tend to have low boredom thresholds) do something to stir the pot.

Also, modern D&D really does have death as the only remaining true-loss condition, so you're correct there.

EDIT: Thus you have reports of players behaving this way or that way and the constant discussions about min/maxers.
It is why I provided another track for level progression through roleplaying decision points via Traits, Bonds, Flaws, Ideals.
Focusing on emotional struggle, character growth, playing into flaws, making hard decisions, providing other meaningful consequences that stand on their own away from the Hit Point god.

50 years and this is the best the designers can do....I guess I shouldn't complain, it is a war-game at the end of the day. But I feel they should advertise that more. War-game disguised as a Roleplaying-game. Sorry rant over.

I'm fine with it being a war game as long as it's treated like war rather than sport. But they keep trying to put this 'sport' veneer over it and the results are, well, less than brilliant.

That said, your alternate method of advancement would raise a big red flag were I a player, in that it means you-as-DM are now judging my roleplaying and I'm at the mercy of that judgment.

1e had this, after a fashion (by RAW your costs to train into a new level were set by how well the DM thought you'd roleplayed to your alignment during the previous level), and it didn't work well then either. I don't know of any tables that actually used that rule as written.

 

[Maxperson]

NO ONE READS THE DMG!

I tried to open it once ...

View attachment 410827

...it didn't work out.

 

[Lanefan]

... Lanefan because, as far as I can tell, he doesn't play 5e

Correct.

and couldn't care less whether it does or doesn't do any particular thing.

Incorrect. Even though I don't play it, I care about what it does because, for better or wosre, that becomes what the community comes to expect.

Which means when it does something I think is either really good or really stupid I'm gonna call it out. Same goes for 4e, or did during its day.

 

[Maxperson]

Even though I don't play it, I care about what it does because, for better or wosre, that becomes what the community comes to expect.

Then 6e needs to include, "Thou shalt bring thy DM a well seasoned ribeye steak cooked medium rare."

 

[Lanefan]

I don't understand how FF could ever...not be kept in the GM's control. It's purely expressed in how GMs frame scenes where someone failed to achieve something they wanted to achieve. How could that ever be anything else...? I'm truly confused here.

I think the example was there being a secondary roll to determine the presence or absence of a complication; and if that roll were player-visible it might force the dM to add a complication (because the players would expect it due to the roll they just saw) where a complication just doesn't make sense.