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

[TwoSix]

People can like something, or not dislike it, even if they wish it had XYZ or didn't have ABC in it.

Certainly for me, I’m pretty “neutral” on most things, without an active “like” or “dislike.”

And there are plenty of things I “like” despite the presence of subjective or objective flaws.

 

[TwoSix]

That's a different statement than "didn't give me what I wanted." It's moving the goalposts, though it's more accurate to what I know about you from prior interactions. You didn't mean to imply that you disliked prior editions, but the way you wrote it did imply that.

It’s not moving the goalposts. It’s a disagreement with the context someone extracted from the statement.

If someone says “it’s obvious from this statement that you mean X”, and you disagree with that interpretation, there’s no goalposts being moved, there’s simply the natural ambiguity of context and meaning we all attempt to overcome when we communicate.

 

[hawkeyefan]

... which I read to be saying that risk mitigation isn't really part of the purpose of play in narrative games. Do you disagree? Or perhaps I'm reading too much into either what you or he wrote?

I think it is less a focus of play, for sure. Like, I cannot ever see play of a narrativist game devolving into a series of standard practices… play won’t i volve everyone poking everything with 10’ poles and following door protocols and the like. Which isnot something I miss at all!

But that doesn’t mean risks can’t be mitigated. Players can try and position their characters for success. Even if it’s as basic as advocating for the application of a more favorable stat to address a situation or obstacle.

Many games have character based moves that involve risk mitigation as well. Moves or abilities that encourage interation with the situation and grant bonuses or advantages.

So I don’t think either you or @pemerton are wrong in your assessment. But I don’t think my statement is as contradictory to that stance as perhaps you expected.

 

[Faolyn]

Not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion. I feel about 4e almost exactly the opposite of @pemerton . It is the least D&Dish of all the D&Ds that has been published to date for me. And his opinion and mine are of equal weight and validity.

Um... that's entirely what the discussion is about. @pemerton said he didn't dislike non-4e D&D. For some reason, people don't believe him because he said he preferred 4e. He wasn't making an objective statement about the game. He was talking about his preferences.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What am I not getting? Because it seems like you keep repeating that I just don't understand because I don't care for the technique. The old "If you really understood you would accept how good it is."

No… again, I don’t care if you like it or not. But the way in which you describe it… the reasons you give for not liking it, contain errors or misconceptions.

This is what I was reaponding to:

Note - you can obviously share some techniques and if people want to implement fail forward in D&D and it works for their group that's fine. I used to introduce "dramatic" events on an ad-hoc basis to my game on a regular basis as well. Not exactly fail forward, just throwing in a monster or a complication because it felt like the game wasn't exciting enough. But eventually I realized my players knew I was doing it and that what we came to call OTAs (Obligatory Thug Attacks) just didn't add a lot. Randomly encountering monsters in a dangerous area sure, but a group of ninjas just attacking you in the middle of the street because we hadn't had a fun combat encounter lately or I wanted some "filler"? Just not for me.

I happen to feel like fail forward kind of like those OTAs if I'm running a D&D game in the sense that frequently failure will have a cost, but it's going to be directly related to the action taken.

Fail forward isn’t like what you called OTAs. They don’t happen just because nothing’s happened in a while and you need to shake things up. They also don’t just come out of nowhere like your “ninjas attack” scenario. Comparing it to this implies a lack of understanding.

Your closing line in the above that “consequences are directly related to the action” is what people have been telling you should be the case with fail forward.

Examples

1. In another post I asked for clarification on how a failed perception check led to needing a shoe replaced and @AnotherGuy responded with D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting..
2. "Failed attempt at kidnap => word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant." in D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting..
3. In the same post Pemerton also mentioned "Failed Sing to try and restore my sense of self => harassed by a guard."

For #1, what I didn't understand was that the character was in a ditch, failed a perception check to notice a trap and were lucky that it only damaged their shoe. The failed perception check caused the character to not notice a trap the effect was that the trap was triggered. Cause and effect clearly linked. For #2, their character did try to kidnap someone at knife point and failed. Cuse and effect also clearly linked because he was the knife wielding assailant. But #3? Failed to restore his sense of self and failed so a guard shows up? There's no connection between what the character was doing and the complication, just a correlation of unrelated events.

That #3, no connection between the action and the complication, is pretty common in examples. Fail a lockpick check and because you failed the attempt you get noticed by someone. A guard coming along, being noticed while attempting a break-in and similar are fine in and of themselves but there is no cause and effect, no logical chain of events showing causation instead of correlation.

Attempting a break-in and flub a stealth check, fail a perception check to notice the dog, fail an investigation check and set off the alarm are all things that would connect the failure to a result of a guard showing up. But that kind of correlation is in no way required or even expected. If you're saying that I'm incorrect about this than you need to also correct a whole lot of people who have said otherwise. Because what I've been told is that sometimes there's a logical chain of events and sometimes there's not.

So you site three examples, two of which you readily admit are clearly include a connection between action and consequence. Then you offer a third and claim it does not… but in the link to the example, the connection is obviously stated.

I accept you don’t like fail forward. But the claims you’re making… that the consequences are unrelated to the action… are inaccurate.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So?

So what did your post have to do with what I said?

I was asked how I handle a situation in this post from @Lanefan:

In the thief-cook example, though, the presence of the cook is potentially hidden information - how can the player roll anything for her - or related to her - without giving away far too much info in the metagame?

The context of this question was about how I handle it in games where the GM makes no rolls for NPCs. Games like Blades in the Dark, Stonetop, and Spire.

It was a question about specific games and how it is handled in those games.

A big part of how you handle that is you largely ditch the idea of metagaming as it’s often conceived for D&D and similar games.

So your claim is in their estimation wrong (and in my estimation mischaracterized as objective fact), and they wanted to disagree in writing?

It was my opinion, Micah… how can it be wrong? Shouldn’t you be vociferously pointing out that we like what we like and it’s just a matter of preference?

This is a fundamental difference of approach. I care about the difference between the game and metagame. If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't.

Yes, it is a different approach.

Sometimes I want to be surprised by danger, and no I don't want the level of detail you provide. I want to know what my character knows and nothing more. I want to try things that maybe in retrospect were the wrong approach because it's part of the process of discovering what the right approach is. If I'm playing a character and we run across a troll one of the first things I'm going to do is ask the GM if my character knows what a troll is. If he doesn't, I won't use fire (at least not at first). On the other hand I can't remember a game where it wasn't common knowledge that you needed fire to kill a troll but that's a different issue.

At risk of bringing up the whole metagame conversation, I think that once you as a player are actively pretending to not know what you know, you’re actively playing some kind of metagame. It’s the kind of thing that some players and GMs seem to enjoy based on discussions here on ENW, but it’s something I think is largely exacerbated by the attempts to avoid it, and it’s the kind of play in which I have no interest.

 

[bloodtide]

Of course, "metagaming" is often in the eye of the beholder.

I've frequently been told that in standard old-school play, "player knowledge" is perfectly acceptable in nearly every instance, even if the character simply should not know that trolls are weak to acid and fire (or whatever example is relevant). I know OSR isn't a monolith and such, but this has come up so many times that I'm reasonably convinced it was standard practice at most tables in the days of yore and remains standard practice at most "old school" tables today.

As an Old School 3 O'Clock High Teacher I can say this is accurate. Player Knowledge = Character Knowledge.

Sure there were a couple of the Tyrant DMs that would make the big deal "Remember none of your characters know about trolls!" and then the DM can have some trolls attack and TPK the group. It was great fun for the DM....and this type of Tyrant DM has made a come back with the "expert characters" and what the DM allows them to know.

But most Old School DMs were fine with "if the player knows it, the character knows it".

Of course, "knowing a secret" was not much help in a typical Old School game. Player-"Hehe, I attack the troll with my burning torch!!!!!" and hits and does some damage....then "The troll hits with both it's claws and rips your character in half with a rend..and uses your blood to put out the torch." Gee, good thing the player knew that fire secret, hum?

And, Of Course, the Big One: DMs would change things on a whim. Player "I blast the troll with a fireball, hehe". DM: "The fireball does no damage as the troll absorbs all the flames and grows and gets more powerful" Player: "Wait what? Page 11 of the rules says..." DM-"Don't care, the now super-troll attacks!!!"

Further, it's pretty clearly blatant metagaming to have Bob IV, the cousin of the recently-deceased Bob III, just show up imprisoned in the next room of the dungeon, but this was a common behavior at many old-school tables because it meant getting right back into the action without having to do a bunch of (for that player) very tedious waiting.

This was...and is....common in a lot of games. Though you could really drop the 'cousin' part.

BUT.....um.....this is not Metagaming by any definition? Metagaming is "using knowledge that is external to the game to influence in-game decisions". So how does that have anything to do with placement of a new PC? You can say it's a Convoluted Coincidence, Hi jinks or even Shenanigans......but not Metagaming

"Metagaming" is so loose, so variable depending on who you talk to and what specific things you look at, that it's extremely difficult, borderline impossible, to have any kind of conversation about it. Things I would consider to be blatant and unacceptable metagaming, you might consider to be perfectly acceptable ordinary gaming, and vice-versa.

Odd, does not seem that way. Just don't count anything you don't like as "metagaming".

 

[Micah Sweet]

No… again, I don’t care if you like it or not. But the way in which you describe it… the reasons you give for not liking it, contain errors or misconceptions.

This is what I was reaponding to:


Fail forward isn’t like what you called OTAs. They don’t happen just because nothing’s happened in a while and you need to shake things up. They also don’t just come out of nowhere like your “ninjas attack” scenario. Comparing it to this implies a lack of understanding.

Your closing line in the above that “consequences are directly related to the action” is what people have been telling you should be the case with fail forward.



So you site three examples, two of which you readily admit are clearly include a connection between action and consequence. Then you offer a third and claim it does not… but in the link to the example, the connection is obviously stated.

I accept you don’t like fail forward. But the claims you’re making… that the consequences are unrelated to the action… are inaccurate.

It's a matter of perspective, and definition. Some people determine the relation of action and consequence differently than you do. Contrary to your claim, that does not make them wrong. It means they looked at it differently and came to different conclusions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It was my opinion, Micah… how can it be wrong? Shouldn’t you be vociferously pointing out that we like what we like and it’s just a matter of preference?

As I said in the post to which you responded, you did not present your statement as opinion. If you meant it to be, then of course that's just fine.

 

[Enrahim]

I realize I have another great example of alternative to pure fail forward in trad.

The scenario was that I was DMing and the party had found a full body mirror with a riddle. If they didnt correctly solve the riddle the mirror attacked. They failed, and the mirror attacked. They managed to subdue the mirror though, and hence managed to get in some new attempts before it broke lose again. They again managed to subdue it and made another incorrect attempt. At this point I had a timeout, and asked if they wanted to go on, or if I should let something interesting happen. They were all unanimously and enthusiacally confirming thew wanted to go in with the riddle. So a couple of rounds later they managed to find a satisfactory answer to the riddle, and they got the reward.

Pay attention that if I as a DM had followed the (so called) narrarivistic technique of fail-forward here without asking, that would have undermined both the players' desire, and indeed their power to decide over the narrative.