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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The dice in certain games, in conjunction with the rules, can provide fairly clear examples of how to interpret a fail forward situation, and how not to. Star Wars (Fantasy Flight) is one such game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is not a not general gaming forum, it's a D&D forum. So of course any technique you talk about people will assume you're discussing techniques that can be applied to D&D. If I wanted to discuss how to run fail forward in a PbtA game I'd go to one of the forums where people discuss PbtA games.

I've been told more than once (albeit from the same poster) that this thread is an exception, where folks are supposed to complain about the attitudes and opinions of D&D players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!"

Were they runes of demon summoning before the roll to interpret them, or after?

 

[Warnavick]

There may be some games that are played that way, but D&D when I've seen social skills vs. PCs used hasn't been played that way.

I'm also not sure I'd want to play that way. The DM would have to ask the DM every time he wanted to use a social skill if it was okay to use, which would end up being a sizable disruption to game play. Better to just leave social skills vs. PCs off the table completely as intended by the game designers.

To try and clarify, I don't think you need to ask permission as the DM for a social skill against the PC in this context. It would just be a reverse of roles for the player and DM. The DM describes the NPCs social action and then the player decides if their character is influenced, not influenced or, if its uncertain how their PC would respond to the social skill check, set a DC based in their good faith reasoning of the difficulty for the NPC to overcome. So it would be handled exactly how most DMs would handle a PCs attempt at influencing a NPC. That is how I understand this line of discussion.

 

[Campbell]

This is one of those areas where we need to be mindful of the not pulling isolated text out of the context of the game. Apocalypse World is a game where the GM is providing active adversity pretty much every moment of play. They are not neutral arbiters of setting - they are actively messing with the player characters in order to see if the community can hold together and discover who the characters are when pressure is applied. It's also a game where characters are defined by their relationship to things, places and people within the community.

• The Saavyhead and his workshop
• The Angel and their medical supplies / infirmary
• The driver and their car
• The Maestro'D and their place of business
• The Hocus and their cult.
• The Gunlugger and their Big F' Off Gun
• The Chopper and their gang

It's saying that given that the game is about finding about the characters the most interesting sorts of adversity are going to be those that make these character defining things relevent rather than taking it away given that this is a game where you defined mostly by your connections rather than what you can do.

Trying to pull out these bits of text and apply it to games where characters are adventurers mostly defined by capabilities where the GM is expected to be a neutral arbiter is silly.

It's important to remember this text is addressing a game that actively encourages the GM to do the sorts of things that would violate social norms at most trad tables so it's important to remind them that make as hard a move as you like usually should not include make as hard a move as you can think of. In a well-run D&D game your stuff being in jeopardy is likely a result of decisions you have made while exploring the setting. In Apocalypse World it's the result of a GM having the setting act upon you..

Game specific context also matters. Monsterhearts for example does not have the same sort of prescription on characters' belongings because they are not character defining in Monsterhearts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We are mixing up the issue here. The issue is not with the results of the roll, but with the GM ever asking for the roll in the first place. Asking for a roll that can override character intent is itself a mistake. There’s no good outcome from it. It’s a misapplication of mechanics, not a debate about agency per say.

If a player says, “My character would never do this,” and the GM responds with, “Roll Insert Skill here,” the GM has already denied authorship. The die becomes a bludgeon used to override character intent. It’s akin to calling for a perception check for something the PC isn’t trying to notice. You're forcing a potential outcome the player didn’t opt into by DM fiat under the guise of a mechanic. The roll doesn’t reveal anything, it just enforces your will on the player.

The core issue is that the GM is using a mechanic to seize narrative control of a character that is not theirs to steer. The mistake is asking for that roll. The GM should find another way, if they need that thing to happen.

And just because I know someone will bring it up. This has nothing to do with trust, it's about preserving the collaborative structure in which GMs and players operate in systems like D&D.

TLDR: Asking for the roll is the issue., the agency discussion is simply a downstream effect of that mistake that has no good answer.

By that definition, magical mind control of any stripe is out too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So verisimilitude is more important than players enjoying the characters they wish to enjoy.

Sometimes, if exploring a world with setting logic as an important aspect is enjoyable to them. You can't have everything you like all the time, and you don't always get to choose which ones and for how long. I'm fine with that as a player, for my part.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's what you think, huh? That when Vince and Meg Baker wrote Apocalypse World, that they said "we need some marketing phrases that can be used in online discussion" rather than "we need to provide a list of useful guidelines to playing this game"?

Not that they just tried to write the game to be as clear and evocative as possible, but that they were thinking of marketing?

Well... it's a take, I guess.

You are welcome to believe all those pithy principle names (not to mention all the playbook moves) are clear as to their meaning, and perfectly align to their descriptions, but that is not a universally held opinion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is one of those areas where we need to be mindful of the not pulling isolated text out of the context of the game. Apocalypse World is a game where the GM is providing active adversity pretty much every moment of play. They are not neutral arbiters of setting - they are actively messing with the player characters in order to see if the community can hold together and discover who the characters are when pressure is applied. It's also a game where characters are defined by their relationship to things, places and people within the community.

• The Saavyhead and his workshop
• The Angel and their medical supplies / infirmary
• The driver and their car
• The Maestro'D and their place of business
• The Hocus and their cult.
• The Gunlugger and their Big F' Off Gun
• The Chopper and their gang

It's saying that given that the game is about finding about the characters the most interesting sorts of adversity are going to be those that make these character defining things relevent rather than taking it away given that this is a game where you defined mostly by your connections rather than what you can do.

Trying to pull out these bits of text and apply it to games where characters are adventurers mostly defined by capabilities where the GM is expected to be a neutral arbiter is silly.

It's important to remember this text is addressing a game that actively encourages the GM to do the sorts of things that would violate social norms at most trad tables so it's important to remind them that make as hard a move as you like usually should not include make as hard a move as you can think of. In a well-run D&D game your stuff being in jeopardy is likely a result of decisions you have made while exploring the setting. In Apocalypse World it's the result of a GM having the setting act upon you..

Game specific context also matters. Monsterhearts for example does not have the same sort of prescription on characters' belongings because they are not character defining in Monsterhearts.

I'm with you, if by that you mean that terms in specific games should stay in their game (or in similar games using g them in the same way).

 

[Maxperson]

To try and clarify, I don't think you need to ask permission as the DM for a social skill against the PC in this context. It would just be a reverse of roles for the player and DM. The DM describes the NPCs social action and then the player decides if their character is influenced, not influenced or, if its uncertain how their PC would respond to the social skill check, set a DC based in their good faith reasoning of the difficulty for the NPC to overcome. So it would be handled exactly how most DMs would handle a PCs attempt at influencing a NPC. That is how I understand this line of discussion.

That's an interesting take on it. I think I would still prefer to just decide when my PC does or does not do certain things, because when I play, I prefer to just play and not have to do DM things. I'd give that way a try if a DM ran it that way, though. It's not inherently objectionable like removal of agency would be.