Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7173119" data-attributes="member: 42582">I thought I'd catch up on this thread, and I found some posts about stuff I know something about!I've used plenty of modules written for other editions/systems in 4e. For me it's not been very different from using a module that was written for 4e. In either case, the module is providing me with maps, NPCs and their motivations, and similar elements of background/backstory. And it generates ideas about what sort of thing might be where.When I ran the goblin parts of B10 Night's Dark Terror, all I had to do was decide what sorts of goblins to use in lieu of ordinary B/X goblins, sub-chiefs and chiefs.When I ran a ruined temple vignette from the d20 book Wonders out of Time, I had to make more elaborate decisions like how to handle a water weird (which didn't exist in the 4e rules, at least at the time in question).On the mechanical side, I wouldn't say it is any different in kind to using material from other systems with Rolemaster. The main thing I found different was the need to draw up maps for areas where I expected to have to run an intricate combat.I've never had any issues with stealth or hiding in Rolemaster, Burning Wheel or 4e. The fact that it's a major topic of discussion and contention in 5e seems to me to be something distinctive about this particular edition.I think my games (in 4e and other systems) count as "Big Story". But I don't think my preferred methods fully fit your description of Big DM.4e worked great for me.This is not correct, or at best is partially correct for a particular (I would say generally bowdlerised) version of "say 'yes'" GMing.In its origins, "say 'yes' or roll the dice" is a technique for managing pacing and related matters like anti-climax, focus of attention, etc. It depends upon some formal or informal mechanisms for establishing - as between players and GM - what is at stake in a certain episode of play (say, a session, or an adventure). When action declarations don't bear upon those stakes, the GM "says 'yes'" - that is, the PC succeeds at whatever it is that s/he is attempting. When an action declaration does bear upon those stakes, the GM frames the situation in mechanical terms and the action resolution mechanics are invoked (ie "the dice are rolled")."Fail forward" is a concomitant technique, also for managing pacing and related matters. When the dice are rolled, the PC might sometimes fail. (These sorts of games may start to break down if success is mechanically automatic. I know from experience that this can become an issue with skill checks in upper Epic 4e.)A GM using "fail forward" narrates those failures in a certain way - namely, so as to sharpen the focus upon, heighten, or otherwise connect to the stakes in some way that is adverse to the PC. The point of this is to use the failure to frame the player (via his/her PC) into a circumstance where some sorts of stakes-addressing choice is required. Hence the failure doesn't bring the narrative trajectory of play to any sort of halt - thus the "forward" in "fail forward".Here are two examples of fail forward (I made up the first; the second is adapted from an example in a BW rulebook):(1) A PC is looking is in a cellar, looking for the secret entrance s/he is sure must be there somewhere, leading to the cultist headquarters. The check is framed and failed. The GM narrates that the PC, having found nothing on the first wall s/he checks, turns to the next wall - only to have an (undiscovered) secret door in that first wall slide open, from which emerges a cultist who attacks the PC from behind. (2) A PC is at a social gathering and wants to assassinate an enemy. The PC approaches the enemy, dagger concealed up his/her sleeve. At the last minute the PC pulls out the dagger, intending to stab the enemy and then - as everyone looks to see why the NPC is collapsing - melt into the crowd. The check is framed and failed. The GM narrates that the PC stabs the enemy but - as s/he withdraws her bloodied blade from the dying NPC - is not able to melt into the crowd at all! Rather, s/he has been spotted performing the killing, and the other NPCs in the room are now all looking aghast at the PC as s/he stands there with a bloody knife in his/her hand.In (1) the PC suffers outright failure: s/he does not find the secret door. In (2) the PC suffers failure: s/he does not melt into the crowd, but rather is caught in the act. But it is not outright failure: s/he does kill the enemy NPC. Both (1) and (2) are illustrations of "fail forward" narration.But one thing about both "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and "fail forward" is that they are inconsistent with (at least some forms of) "Big DM" approach, because they can't be used in the context of a pre-authored storyline, because (i) they depend upon taking the dice rolls, including failure, seriously and so there is simply no prior guarantee of how events will unfold, and (ii) they depend upon the GM narrating failures that are apt to the circumstances, context, stakes etc of the check, and there is no prior guarantee in respect of these things either, meaning again that there is simply no prior guarantee of how events will unfold. And (i) and (ii) compound one another as the game is played, to mean that while there is a narrative trajectory, its direction and destination aren't known in advance.What I have described as the "bowdlerised" version of "fail forward" is an attempt to adapt the technique to "Big DM" storytelling: the GM has a conception of where the narrative is headed (eg the PCs need to find the map so they can get to the temple so they can free the sphinx so they can solve the riddle so they can get the clue so they can find the tomb so they can recover the MacGuffin). But if the PCs fail a certain check (eg they fail to find the temple, or they fail to solve the riddle) then the pre-planned narrative will not eventuate. Hence, instead of failures the GM narrates successes but with a cost (eg the PCs find the temple but are tired when they get there; or they solve most of the riddle but can't work out whether one particular bit is referring to the east or the west, and so have a harder time in exploring the area to find the tomb).This sort of "fail forward" does, indeed, preclude outright failure. The reason I describe it as bowdlerised is because it is turning the original conception of "fail forward" on its head: instead of being a technique for reconciling the possibility of failure with the continuity of narrative trajectory, achieved in part by giving up on "Big DM" storytelling, it is a technique of reconciling Big DM storytelling with its continuous and preconceived narrative trajectory with rolling of the dice by eliminating the possibility of failure. So you end up with either "saying 'yes'", so no dice are rolled, or "saying 'yes'" but the dice are rolled to see if the "yes" comes with a cost.</blockquote>

Verification