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

[EzekielRaiden]

Gary said something along those lines in the 1e DMG, followed immediately by, if it won't make the game worse or would make it better, then of course you should engage in realism.

Basically, he's saying that making people have their characters go to the bathroom X times a day, every day would be unfun as all heck, but other forms of realism might not be that bad, so do it.

Sure.

But the core point remains: even from the very foundation of the hobby, even from the moment that what most folks see as the highest height of ultra-realism, generally-respected folks recognized that overly-laborious focus on realism wasn't actually productive. That there are, in fact, times when it is NOT correct to choose greater realism and damn the consequences. That, even to people who prize realism extremely highly, it is NOT universally better to maximize realism absolutely every single time. It didn't come from some yahoo nobody knows. It didn't come from "storytelling" games. It didn't come from a newfangled thing that can be dismissed because it's just a fad. It can't be written off as merely an isolated separate preference totally unrelated to sandbox-y play or "traditional GM" games, because this was very specifically in a context everyone agrees is unequivocally sandbox-y play by the man who defined what "traditional GM" meant.

There have been many arguments, here and elsewhere, where folks have presented the thesis, often in different words, that if you have a choice where option A is more realistic and option B is less realistic, it is ALWAYS, 100% of the time, regardless of context or cost, absolutely always best to choose A, no matter what A or B might be, because A is more realistic and B is less. It is useful to me, to point to something that has none of the characteristics used to casually dismiss my arguments.

It is a useful way to show people that realism is not a cost-free choice, and that sometimes, the cost can be too high.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sounds like a perfectly good Ahab and the White Whale moment to me.

I don't follow. Ahab was doomed and it's quite clear from the very beginning that he's doomed.

Further--isn't this the very storytelling you claim to detest so? You're already turning this situation into a narrative arc!

 

[AnotherGuy]

It sounds like he means NPCs.

You're assuming a cook is there. He's saying a cook isn't there, so won't be added in due to a failed roll.

This is true, but in a traditional sandbox the failed lockpicking roll isn't going to determine that. The DM will know if there's a cook in the house, and then assign a chance of the cook being in that room regardless of the lockpicking roll. Both of those things will be discreetly different events in a traditional sandbox.

Because the cook being there or not has absolutely nothing to do with a lockpicking attempt.

What some trad DMs, to eliminate their own bias, is assign odds and then roll a die to see if the cook is in the kitchen or wherever.

One can expedite the process by deriving the following quick table

01-05 lose x time, lockpicks break (1-2) or gets jammed in the lock (4-6)
06-10 lose x time, fail, can attempt again
11-15 success with complication, you pick the lock but the cook is in the kitchen (1-5) or you drop the lockpicks accidentally making a sound (6)
16+ success no complication

Whether you roll the die independently, one for lockpicking and another for where the cook is or whether you assign it all in one, the difference essentially are the statistical odds of the cook appearing.
I do think mechanics for Trad GMs such as Fail Forward or Success with Complication are a little more hesitant as they like to consider the effects of those techniques on the consistency for fiction and perhaps various gamist principles.
Whereas GMs who are more pro the Narrative have a little more freedom as Fail Foward and Success with Complication inform them where/when they can extend some of their creativity.

Much of this earlier part of this discussion in this thread the Narrative-pro posters were asking what restrictions/restraints exist on the Trad-GM side of the aisle when it comes to GM decides. Well, here we see a conservative application of 2 techniques with the GM decides approach.

The Trad GMs do not feel as comfortable mixing fictions in one roll, and this is likely because the stakes of the roll have been set:
Success or Failure on the lockpick. To mix further fiction into the roll may feel to the Trad GM as cheating or playing loosey-goosey with the fiction particularly because Trad play is not generally player-facing. If the stakes on the roll included that other fiction then I do not think the Trad GMs would have an issue but one should take note of how a call for checks arise in a Trad game.

GM: You test the door. It is locked.
Rogue: I pull out my lockpicks and attempt to pick it.
GM: Considers if there is risk (time likely). Make a Tool Kit Proficiency check. [The GM may not even provide the necessary DCs]
....There is no negotiation of additional stakes or complications. The rules do not necessarily speak of it either.

This is very different in a Narrative game I suspect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When the table I'm using is written out on paper, "not having rules at all" no longer applies.

And how can players distinguish that?

I've never watched Matt Colville run a game and I don't intend to; what he does is up to him and has no bearing on what I do.

Perhaps. As noted, you are insulated from a lot of things because your group has remained functionally unchanged for decades. Even on this site, which leans older, "traditional", and GM-centric, your experience is quite far from typical. Plenty of players will now have personal experience with GMs that would pull shenanigans like this. That might not affect YOU. But it does affect plenty of people who might want to heed your advice.

So let me get this straight: by your take here, when the PCs see an open area below them* with a gem emitting intermittent flashing lights of different colours, I'm supposed to tell the players what those lights do and the mechanics behind how they work before the PCs interact with them?

No. What I'm saying is, you have not really done anything particularly meaningful or noteworthy by only revealing secrets that are now, functionally, irrelevant. Like finding out after you quit a previous job because you got a better offer, that there were free snacks in the break room that you never knew about, or that all those weird tasks that came down from on high were actually part of a hush-hush government contract all along, and thus there were specific rules for why certain tasks were assigned, or that all the times you got a promotion and someone else didn't (or vice-versa) there were actually well-defined and specific procedures which were sensible, just complicated. Like...you no longer care. It no longer matters why those things were ABC and not XYZ, because...it literally doesn't affect you anymore. Knowing how to advance in a workplace you don't work at (and almost certainly won't work at again) is useless information. It's nice to know that they weren't yanking your chain, but other than letting you know that they weren't doing that, there's nothing really gained from this information.

Again, I'm not saying it's bad, and I definitely didn't say that EVERYTHING FOREVER should be revealed. (It's worth noting, this is an example of inserting an extreme view I never said nor even implied. Folks on the "traditional GM" side of this discussion have been quite prone to call out ascribing extreme views to them. If that's a problem, I'd appreciate that that expectation apply to all.)

What I am saying, is that there's a lot more meaning to communicating the rules, or at least some of the rules, when that information still has a meaningful (NOT guaranteed, just meaningful) chance of mattering. That's a gesture with weight to it, because the rules are public knowledge. A failure to abide by them is visible. As I said (repeatedly), that kind of reveal means you as GM have skin in the game. There's no cost to you, no risk, no weight when you as GM already know that it almost certainly won't ever matter. There is some cost, some risk, some weight if you have good reason to believe it will matter again, even if not right away.

Hence why I said it wasn't bad, but it wasn't particularly good either. It's null information, because the impact of the reveal is largely null.

Where's the mystery in that?

Separately from the above: Why does there need to be mystery in it? You say this as though it's axiomatic that every rule should be mysterious until it doesn't matter anymore. This is far from established (to say nothing at all about whether it is even true).

 

[Enrahim]

One in 400 over one in 1000? I'm sorry, I consider a factor of two and a half pretty significant and I suspect if you asked people "Does it matter that save on a 17 or a 10?" it would to them, too.

I am sorry, your math intuition is a bit off. I think the issue become clearer if you turn it arround: Do you care about your chances of succeeding halving? How about your chances of succeeding being reduced by less than 1%? A doubling of 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000 feels much less significant to most than a doubling from 50% to 100%.

Also I think these math details is insignificant to the larger point you try to make, and I guess this exchange unintentionally proved my point that the D1000 example might be bad due to the possibility that it might distract from this larger point..

 

[clearstream]

At the culmination of the particular campaign, the paladin is scaling the cliff to get to the portal where the pit fiend is coming through as his other party members hold off the other hellish forces from getting to hi...WHOOOOPS! Slipped and fell to his death! Sorry, Harold, them's the breaks! You had fun anyway, though, right? Me? Naw, I'm fine with this cartoonish ending to the story we wove together over the last 2 years!

Something related to this that I occasionally think about is whether games ought to strive to tell the sorts of stories we've grown used to from the Western dramatic tradition? Given the switch from linear, prescripted, active-author / passive-audience to non-linear, dynamic, the lusory-trinity (each player as author, actor, audience)... why do I expect the stories worth telling to remain the same?

Players differ on this. I would say that most folk that I play with would agree with you, but some straightforwardly would not. They're not thinking in terms of an expected dramatic climax.

 

[clearstream]

I am sorry, your math intuition is a bit off. I think the issue become clearer if you turn it arround: Do you care about your chances of succeeding halving? How about your chances of succeeding being reduced by less than 1%? A doubling of 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000 feels much less significant to most than a doubling from 50% to 100%.

Also I think these math details is insignificant to the larger point you try to make, and I guess this exchange unintentionally proved my point that the D1000 example might be bad due to the possibility that it might distract from this larger point..

One way I think about it is appearances over sessions. That is because the probability alone doesn't tell us much unless we also consider the frequency of tests against it.

Say a group likes to roll dice a lot so they have a roll of the sort we're thinking about every 5 minutes for 4 hours = 48 per session. 1:400 means they will experience the feared result about once over ten sessions. If they play weekly, that's about once a quarter year (taking into account what I've experienced as the normal ratios of skipped sessions).

That's a palpable degree less than 1:20 where they'll experience it twice a session. Would it make much difference if it were halved again? I think that depends mostly on the third factor that should ordinarily be considered, which is severity. Here the severity is character death if I'm reading correctly.

It seems to me that character death from a cause like this any more than twice a year might feel rather too much! On that basis I'd agree with @Thomas Shey. One response would be to suppose the group roll far less often for this sort of thing, e.g. if it's once an hour of play the observed incidences per year decline dramatically.

 

[pemerton]

Then what would it look like? A concrete actual example?

I've already posted examples in reply to you, twice. Here's a third go:

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]

I'm with you to the extent that the GM doesn't directly go to a hard move that didn't have setup. But can't they go to a setup move that didn't have prior setup? That is, can't the fail forward result lead to the setup move:

"You open the door but a cook sees you, and glances around in alarm. What do you do?"

They aren't screaming yet, but they could be.

Or should the fail forward from picking the lock lead directly to a hard move?

There are two things here:

(1) If someone has failed, generally the GM is going to make what in AW parlance would be called a hard move. Some implicit or perhaps expressly flagged consequence is brought home. Burning Wheel is probably a bit less clear-cut here than AW, in part because it is based around scenes and stakes for resolution (AW is not in the same way), and in part because it has extremely high rates of failed tests (by D&D standards, and setting aside low level human thieves in classic versions of the game).

(2) A general principle in AW is that moves have to follow from the fiction. Burning Wheel doesn't state this (and doesn't use the terminology of moves); it talks about scenes, but again takes as given that the elements in scenes are implicit if not express. (That's part of the explanation of why a player can make a check to see if there is a chamber pot or jug in the sick room, but not a check to see if it contains the Imperial Throne.)

Where is your mooted cook coming from? Your mooted kitchen? The lack of expectation of the door being passed through?

I re-posted some actual play examples of "fail forward" resolution just upthread. I don't know if they help - but they do show what this looks like in actual play.

 

[The Firebird]

So, what, the PCs can't interact with NPCs unless you have deemed them "meaningful" in some way?

No, not at all. The PCs can interact with anyone. If it's something the GM hasn't fleshed out explicitly, ideally there are random tables or the like (as Micah said) to help do it on the fly.

I've already posted examples in reply to you, twice. Here's a third go:

Consider--the reason people aren't responding to your example despite you quoting it 4 times is because it isn't clear what the example is doing. I've read the first paragraph several times and I'm still confused. There are many tests there, they reference a bunch of different mechanics and characters and setting details that not everyone is familiar with.

It would help me if you made your point with a simple toy example, like the screaming cook, or like John Harper did in his blog post.

(1) If someone has failed, generally the GM is going to make what in AW parlance would be called a hard move.

Yes.

(2) A general principle in AW is that moves have to follow from the fiction.

Hard moves? Setup moves? or both?

How closely do they have to align with the fiction? Can they create new NPCs that previously didn't exist?

Where is your mooted cook coming from? Your mooted kitchen? The lack of expectation of the door being passed through?

Here, the door to an estate was locked. The players tried to pick and got a fail forward result. The GM ruled they got through the door but a cook saw them an is about to scream.