Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7769220" data-attributes="member: 29398">Using various D&D editons as an example:The peaks - those moments where things go well in the fiction, the rules system is working like it should, and everyone's having fun are approximately of equal "height" in all editions.It's the valleys where the differences lie, both in "depth" and in frequency and-or duration.  First off, to get it out of the way, I'll say that opportunities for negative story-based outcomes have always been there, but as such things are not all that quantifyable they don't help with a comparison, which this is.In older D&D there were many different types of "valleys", everything from stretches of party frustration (can't find the next step) to individual PCs being on the wrong end of a save-or-suck/die to losing levels or valuable gear, to whatever.  Character death was but one type of valley.  And in all cases sometimes those valleys went on for a while - it might take a session or two before the way forward is found, or a save-or-suck might put someone out of action for half the night, or it might take a long time to recover the lost level or gear, etc.Newer D&D has done a lot at the system design level to mitigate the depth, frequency, and duration of those valleys.  Fail-forward (4e).  Save-or-die virtually gone.  Save-or-suck durations greatly reduced.  Level loss is gone.  Magic items almost never have to save vs destruction.  It's more difficult for a PC to die (compare 5e's series of death saves with 0e-1e's drop dead at 0 h.p.).  The lasting effects of a death-revival cycle are gone.  Etc.Laudable goal, to reduce those valleys...but it leads to an unexpected result.  In older D&D the depth and frequency of the valleys made the peaks very special when they occurred, but with the valleys now less deep and less frequent the peaks - while not having changed in and of themselves very much - seem lesser.  I know that's not well put, but I'm having trouble putting words to what I'm thinking - if I had the technical knowhow to show this on a chart it'd make more sense.So in the end, to support my earlier point, the graph is 'flatter' because the valleys are shallower.Perhaps there's another way to at least point at the difference: assuming experience with all editions, a player going in to an old-school* D&D game will probably be expecting few peaks and lots of valleys while a player going in to a new school* D&D game will probably be expecting lots of peaks and few valleys.* - by feel; though the editions tend to push in certain directions any of 'em can be made to play in either mode with a bit of work.I'd disagree that the play experience is all that similar, if only due to a) the typical 5e character having so many more mechanical options at its disposal which the player then has to be aware of and in some cases keep track of and b) the massively-faster rest and recovery rates of 5e characters (and their foes) vs 1e characters takes slow day-by-day attrition off the table in favour of all-or-nothing approaches.I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that in older D&D there was no real baked-in concept of wealth-by-level or treasure parcels to be carefully measured and doled out.  It was, or at least from both the player and DM sides very much seemed to be, much more random; with only the vaguest of guidelines suggesting not to go all Monty Haul on things while making sure the party had (for example) magic weapons available by the time they started facing foes that required magic to hit.Sure there were 'treasure types' listed for each monster but IME those were largely ignored in favour of "what sort of stuff might this monster have reasonably accumulated, given where and what it is?", without much regard for whether it's a 2nd-level of 10th-level party finding it.Hey, though I've never used xp for gp I can certainly see how it pushes the exploration side over the combat side. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm saying both, and also saying that both must come from the player/PC side.  Fail-forward often seems from the outside more like what I'd call "success backward", where the DM gives you the success but throws in a complication (e.g. you succeed in climbing the wall but there's a guard at the top waiting for you).  Well, IMO as soon as that happens it's not a failure any more: a failure means you never reach the top.Another example: you roll 'fail' on searching for a secret door (or don't even think to search for it at all!) but in the interests of fail-forward and-or story progression the door is revealed anyway when some monsters come out of it and attack.  The DM hands you a success; and though once in a rare while it makes both dramatic and realistic sense that something like this might happen, when it starts becoming a regular thing it immediately starts looking contrived and just - bad.Maybe it's just a terminology thing, but to me fail means fail (you don't reach the top or find the door or whatever) and succeed means succeed (you do reach the top or find the door or whatever) no matter what else gets thrown in to muddy the waters.You can still have secret doors but you're always forced to put in alternate means of access should the secret door never be found.  Or, you're forced to avoid putting vital things behind said door even when it makes the greatest sense in the fiction that that's exactly where they'd be.Perhaps, but one can never have too many adventures! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Fail-forward in 4e (and other games).  As noted above, the general point of fail-forward seems to be to keep the story moving by having the DM find a way to grant success* in place of failure.  Though subtle, this does - or very easily can - end up becoming a railroad**.  And should the players realize it's happening then things can go sideways in a hurry, if they know the DM isn't going to let them outright fail they'll stop trying so hard to succeed**.* - success at cost is still success in the end.** - been there, done that, from both sides of the screen.</blockquote>

Verification