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

[FrogReaver]

Hang on, so now you're back to quoting some random website?

I don't see why I should take it seriously as a guide to how to play RPGs.

Looks to me like he’s citing a scenario. What the heck does it matter where the hypothetical scenario is from?

 

[pemerton]

This is the problem -- at least in my reading, no one is asking what Luke Crane thinks about action resolution. In fact they explicitly don't care what he thinks.

So responding "Luke Crane says X" is never going to answer their question.

Someone upthread asked what "fail forward" is/looks like.

Given that Luke Crane is one of those who coined the concept, it seems to me that reading his action resolution rules would be relevant to answering the question.

As it turns out, people - the same ones who regard argument from authority as a fallacy - prefer to cite some random website. They regard that as better evidence of what the technique is, and how it works, than the actual rules of an actual RPG or the actual play examples of people actually playing that RPG.

I mean, I can "prove" that sandboxes are silly too, if all I do is point to random websites whose examples of sandboxing are ones that actual sandboxers would regard as amateurish and/or degenerate.

Looks to me like he’s citing a scenario. What the heck does it matter where the hypothetical scenario is from?

Because it is being used to "prove" that the technique has certain features.

It's like me "proving" that cars can fly by citing a random website where someone imagines a flying car.

 

[AlViking]

Hang on, so now you're back to quoting some random website?

I don't see why I should take it seriously as a guide to how to play RPGs.

The snippet you game me on fail forward did not contradict the web site I quoted. As I said, barring actual examples of what you mean my only option is to look up examples. That, and you are not the only one who uses the terminology and I don't care how someone defined it 20 years ago.

 

[Maxperson]

What I find weird is that you will post again and again that realism, causality etc are fundamental to your enjoyment of RPGing. But then you like this post from Maxperson:
So you appear to agree that the sequence of resolution in D&D combat does not conform to forwards-only causality and is, in that respect at least, not realistic.

So someone like me gets confused. Because that seems to suggest that (i) you don't enjoy D&D combat, or (ii) you don't regard it as RPGing, or (iii) you can enjoy RPGing that doesn't conform to realism, forward-facing causality, etc.

You have been told time and time again in many threads that....

1) A like of realism does not equate to wanting to try and mirror reality exactly. It's a spectrum and trying for reality is not necessary.

2) Everything has its own separate realism dial, and we can like different numbers for each dial. Just because we want an 8(arbitrary number) realism for climbing, doesn't mean that we aren't okay with a 4(also arbitrary) realism for combat.

It's not hard to understand if you actually try to understand what we are saying instead of trying to impose your own views about what realism, railroading, etc. on what we say and then claiming a failure to understand when it doesn't line up with your views.

 

[pemerton]

What have I misrepresented?

You keep pointing to an example where the consequence - the screaming cook - has not been telegraphed, has not been expressly or implicitly put at stake, and appears like a rabbit out of hat.

When people who actually play Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World and other games in which "nothing happens" is not a GM-side move point out that your example is silly, you ignore them.

John Harper posted about this on his blog 14 years ago:

I've seen people struggle with hard moves in the moment. Like, when the dice miss, the MC stares at it like, "Crap! Now I have to invent something! Better make it dangerous and cool! Uh... some ninja... drop out of the ceiling... with poison knives! Grah!"

Don't do that. Instead, when it's time for a hard move, look back at the setup move(s) you made. What was threatened? What was about to happen, before the PC took action? Follow through on that. Bring the effects on screen. Bring the consequences to fruition.​

That's what "fail forward" looks like. Not "quantum cooks".

 

[The Firebird]

Someone upthread asked what "fail forward" is/looks like.

Given that Luke Crane is one of those who coined the concept, it seems to me that reading his action resolution rules would be relevant to answering the question.

You can say "Luke Crane thinks it is like this". But what you are being told is that Luke Crane's opinion does not match other's experiences. You continue to say "well Luke Crane said..." rather than engaging with these other opinions, which is an argument from authority.

 

[pemerton]

The snippet you game me on fail forward did not contradict the web site I quoted. As I said, barring actual examples of what you mean my only option is to look up examples

I posted actual examples, in reply to you. Here they are again:

I posted some actual examples from play:

Here's some examples from actual play:

Aedhros had helped collect the corpse, and also helped with the Taxidermy (using his skill with Heart-seeker), but was unable to help with the Death Art. He was reasonably happy to now leave the workshop; and was no stranger to stealthy kidnappings in the dark. I told my friend (now GMing) that I wanted to use Stealthy, Inconspicuous and Knives to spring upon someone and force them, at knife point, to come with me to the workshop. He called for a linked test first, on Inconspicuous with Stealth FoRKed in. This succeeded, and Aedhros found a suitable place outside a house of ill-repute, ready to kidnap a lady of the night. When a victim appeared, Aedhros tried to force a Steel test (I think - my memory is a bit hazy) but whatever it was, it failed, and the intended victim went screaming into the night. Now there is word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant.

Aedhros's Beliefs are I will avenge the death of my spouse!, Thurandril will admit that I am right! and I will free Alicia and myself from the curse of Thoth!; and his Instincts are Never use Song of Soothing unless compelled to, Always repay hurt with hurt, and When my mind is elsewhere, quietly sing the elven lays. Having failed at the most basic task, and not knowing how to return to Thoth empty-handed, Aedhros wandered away from the docks, up into the wealthier parts of the city, to the home of the Elven Ambassador. As he sang the Elven lays to himself, I asked the GM for a test on Sing, to serve as a linked test to help in my next test to resist Thoth's bullying and depravity. The GM set my Spite of 5 as the obstacle, and I failed - a spend of a fate point only got me to 4 successes on 4 dice.

My singing attracted the attention of a guard, who had heard the word on the street, and didn't like the look of this rag-clothed Dark Elf. Aedhros has Circles 3 and a +1 reputation with the Etharchs, and so I rolled my 4 dice to see if an Etharch (whether Thurandril or one of his underlings or associates) would turn up here and now to tell the guards that I am right and they should not arrest me. But the test failed, and the only person to turn up was another guard to join the first in bundling me off. So I had to resort to the more mundane method of offering them 1D of loot to leave me alone. The GM accepted this, no test required.

Then, repaying hurt with hurt, Aedhros followed one of the guards - George, as we later learned he was called - who also happened to be the one with the loot. Aedhros ambushed him from the darkness, and took him at knife point back to the workshop

Failed attempt at kidnap => word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant.

Failed Sing to try and restore my sense of self => harassed by a guard.

Failed Circles hoping that an important Elf will turn up to help me => another guard turns up.

This is what fail forward looks like in play.

 

[pemerton]

You can say "Luke Crane thinks it is like this". But what you are being told is that Luke Crane's opinion does not match other's experiences. You continue to say "well Luke Crane said..." rather than engaging with these other opinions, which is an argument from authority.

A random website is not an experience. It's just a random website.

When I was 12, I designed and GMed a really boring dungeon. Would you take that seriously as evidence that dungeon play can't be interesting?

 

[The Firebird]

A random website is not an experience. It's just a random website.

When I was 12, I designed and GMed a really boring dungeon. Would you take that seriously as evidence that dungeon play can't be interesting?

No. But I think you would do better to say "this is how I would run it now and it works better for me" rather than "Luke Crane says to run it like this". The first engages more genuinely, while the second only invokes an authority.

It's fine if you agree with Luke Crane. But don't act like the fact he has a certain opinion does anything for you.

 

[Maxperson]

I thought you said this:
I have no evidence, other than the testimony of authorities, about the workings of radioactive decay, what some decay sequences are, what some typical decay products are, and what the affects are on health of being exposed to radiation.

I have no supporting evidence, other than the testimony of other authorities (eg all the physics textbooks agree).

According to what you quoted, it is a fallacy to insist that what I have been told is true. I regard that as obviously wrong.

No, you still have more, because those experts also had more. They didn't put a single line or two into the textbook talking about radioactive decay and expect you to believe them. They provide references to experiments, what those revealed and lead to, and more. They back up their claims with evidence for you, so those textbooks were not an Appeal to Authority.