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

[Maxperson]

Stop acting like you meant “like we do” to mean something I’d never have claimed.

I haven't. In fact, I wasn't even originally talking to you.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. That doesn't mean that it's a fallacy to believe them because of their expertise. I can tell you that drivers in Australia travel on the left (British or Japanese style) rather than on the right (US or French style). Why do you believe me?

All you've got is testimony. I mean, you could travel to Australia and check it out.

Or look at Google street-view. That Australians drive on the left is an independently veifiable fact.

I think if someone wants to know what Luke Crane thinks action resolution should look like, reading the rules that he wrote is a pretty good way to learn.

The verifiable fact here is that Crane wrote what he wrote. We have to assume he had only the best of intentions in so doing.

But posting Crane's original words on the topic instead of your own doesn't change my (rather low) opinion of this aspect of what he designed.

And opinions, of course, are where the discussions and arguments come in: I think fail-forward is pretty much nonsense while others think it's great.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, we can rp characters staying at home.

Good game!

Sigh.

We can RP characters doing the smart thing and taking the path of lesser risk and-or resistance to achieve their ends, can't we?

My friend needs saving at the top of the cliff. Do I foolishly risk myself climbing so maybe both of us die, or do I do the smart thing and ensure at least one of us (and, ultimately, maybe both of us) live?

We need to get into the castle. There's six armed guards on the drawbridge and if we take them on, the reinforcements that'll come running will slaughter us. Do we foolishly face-charge them and hope for the best, or do we do the smart thing and try to find a back way in?

 

[Lanefan]

Now, MotW is specifically about fighting monsters, a la Buffy or Supernatural. But as you can see, if the PCs are investigating a vampire's den, they'd be able to find most of the information you've been talking about via this roll. What they wouldn't have to do is make a different roll for each and every thing they want to do, because with luck they'd be able to get three answers with one roll. Nor would they have to specifically roll to practice on the lock because that sort of thing is quite boring and unnecessary. And actually considered to not be the way to play in most tradgames, where you get one shot to do something like that and that's it.

So again, it's a matter of skipping over details and procedure...which would seem to be the very stuff of investigative scenes and situations.

That's only true if you think of an RPG as something you can "win". Which... they're not. RPGs are pretty famous for being games you can't win; you can only enjoy playing them.

If there's no win condition and-or no loss consition, it's not a game.

And yes, you can "win" at RPGs in various ways, just like you can "lose" at them; the main difference between RPGs and most other games being that a single win or loss is almost always merely a passing event in ongoing play rather than a game-ender.

And no, it would not be ideal if "nothing happens" is the best result because that is the most pointless and boring result. What it does is turn those types of games into people rolling the dice until they happen to roll high enough or low enough or whatever before they can continue--Lanefan's example of spending 2.5 sessions, each multiple hours long, on getting past one door. That is such a waste of time.

I should point out that in the door example, there was no rolling involved - that was just the players trying and failing to solve a (in hindsight fairly simple) riddle.

As for it being a waste of time - sure it was frustrating as hell until we got it, but the cheer and relief when we finally did get it was worth it.

Having to roll only to find out either nothing happens or you win is not a system that sounds even remotely interesting to me.

Sometimes maintaining the status quo IS the win.

You're lowering a heavy companion down on a rope and holding him there (think the first Mission Impossible movie). You need to make a strength check every now and then to not drop him. Succeed, and the status quo continues. Fail, and you've got big problems.

 

[Lanefan]

This is like something I do in Baldur's Gate 3, where I am always aware of video game logic and the investment is therefore lower; now way in a face-to-face game would we say "Eh, so you die, so what? We'll just raise you later!" except as a joke.

There are, in war, acceptable losses.

Obviously you try to minimize them when possible. But having one or more survivors who can regroup and carry on is universally better than having no survivors.

 

[Lanefan]

You are no longer arguing the same thing. The argument was about death through a random roll, not player choice. I said myself that even though combat is a series of rolls, players can always choose to retreat.

And yet when I said the player can always choose not to climb the cliff you mocked me for it.

So which is it - can they choose to bail out, or can they not?

 

[Lanefan]

I've posted numerous examples over the whole course of this thread.

I can tell you what Harper is saying. I anticipate I will then be berated for pointlessly and fallaciously referring to an authority. But here goes . . .

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.​

So here, Harper says that the GM should not narrate "quantum" ninjas. The point generalises to cooks - he's just chosen ninjas because they're a colourful illustration of the point.

And here Harper says what a GM should do:

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.​

Is a screaming cook a consequence brought to fruition? Does it follow through on an earlier "setup" move (eg something to do with kitchens, and/or personnel, and/or a concern that the PC might startle someone if they open a door that everyone in the building assumes to be secured against entrance)?

You seem to be assuming that the answer is "no". @AlViking is definitely assuming that the answer is "no".

So if the established fiction has it that it's about 2 a.m., the house is dark and quiet, the PCs' prior casing of the place has shown there to be no watchdogs or pets, the weather is benign so no chance of sudden downpours or thunder etc., and the Thief blows his pick-locks roll on trying to get into the kitchen, what next?

For me, this seems like a pretty obvious "nothing happens right now" situation - the Thief doesn't get in through that door and has to try another door, or a window. (it would be a most unusual house if the only way in was a door straight into the kitchen)

Of course no one has to take John Harper's advice, or Luke Crane's advice. If they want silly consequences like ninjas randomly dropping from the ceiling, that's their prerogative.

If ninjas dropping from the ceiling doesn't make sense then it's not going to happen. Same with a screaming cook. What's most likely to happen is nothing, other than the Thief has to either abandon the break-in or come up with a plan B.

 

[Lanefan]

In other words, you do exactly what I've been talking about this whole time. You make a judgement call about what makes the most sense.

The difference is, narrative games have that baked into the rules.

Except for the very many times when what makes the most sense is a continuation of the status quo, i.e. nothing happens, which isn't allowed by said rules.

And right then is where the overarching question of rules-first or fiction-first rears its head.

 

[SableWyvern]

And right then is where the overarching question of rules-first or fiction-first rears its head.

I bypass all this using my patented Despotic Tyranny First approach.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it makes you feel any better, I don't treat any game designer as important to agree with based on their authority in the hobby, no matter who they are. It's all about whether or not I agree with the opinion in question. I suppose I trust that they understand their own system, but that's about it as far as blind agreement goes. Heck, in the literary world plenty of people don't just accept an author's opinions about their own work, let alone works influenced by it.

And this, right here, is one of the things I find extremely frustrating about discussing game design.

Note your comparison: literature. As in, you treat this as a purely creative enterprise, something that can only be critiqued in a very limited way and where analysis is (functionally) "whatever you think is true".

This completely and totally ignores the technical element of game design. There's a reason I make comparisons to things like baking, or things like automotive design. A car's design has huge influence from aesthetics and subjective value--as anyone that loves cars could tell you, and as anyone who has specific needs for what their car does. But if you design an engine that is fundamentally tearing itself apart under normal operation, that should be worthy of criticism.

Instead, it is held up as the pinnacle of awesome design, because apparently expecting every driver to also be a mechanic is a good thing.