@BoxCrayonTales , I also subscribe to your philosophy (specially so nowadays, married with children). But I think there's space in the hobby for more... simulationist (?) bents. I just don't think it's fair to judge, say, a "realistic" game by narrative standards and vice-versa.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1055348The problem with that is that you're conflating two different things.  Being a main protagonist has nothing to do with any genre or IP setting.  The main characters don't die in Star Wars because they are the main characters in a work of fiction.  However Luke gets his hand chopped off and mauled by a Hoth Yeti, Han and Leia are tortured, and Leia is shot by a stormtrooper (although not a grievous injury).  But Ben, Qui-Gon, Han, and Luke all die eventually.  Protagonists frequently have script immunity.  Even Game of Thrones hasn't permanently killed off Dany or Jon.  

No matter how light or dark in tone the genre is, or what its tropes are, protagonists live because they are protagonists, not because of a genre or setting trope.

I get what you're saying, and agree. But in my specific example the player got offense in getting seriously injured by a stormtrooper. If it was a bounty hunter, a sith or whatever he would be okay. But a stormtrooper? Come on, everyone knows stormtroopers are trained to not injure anyone.

Quote from: Itachi;1055376@BoxCrayonTales , I also subscribe to your philosophy (specially so nowadays, married with children). But I think there's space in the hobby for more... simulationist (?) bents. I just don't think it's fair to judge, say, a "realistic" game by narrative standards and vice-versa.

I don't remember judging a realistic game by narrative standards. I said I don't think realism is appropriate for entertainment, since real life is really boring.

It wasn't you. It was Azraele.

Quote from: Itachi;1055390It wasn't you. It was Azraele.

Azraele? Him? I like him. He digs ninjas and he's grumpy.

Haha I dig ninjas too.

Btw, did you know real ninjas didn't actually wear black pajamas, nor used straight swords called ninja-to? A pity, ne?

Quote from: Azraele;1055353You can critique my analyses; they exist to be cross-examined.

I didn't mean all at once! XD

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055359I backtracked to the original bit you posted and agree with the key example. I've been guilty of "Roll Perception!" until they find the one necessary thing and in hindsight that was poor GMing. Now, the key is simply found and they move on. Otherwise it feels like polyhedral Whack-A-Mole to me. I prefer to give a few choices and leave them open, often completely changing something behind-the-screen because a player came up with such a cool idea, to stonewall it would be shitty. That's not to say I change established things (the locked door is still locked) to placate, just that I don't like crafting scenes where there's an established menu of "How to Pass", if that makes sense. I enjoy adjusting for clever players doing things I didn't think of.

"Polyhedral Whack-A-Mole" made me smile.

I agree with you in terms of encouraging player creativity and not "boxing in" what "counts" as success; I think where we disagree is in the method.

For example, I don't feel like I'm being shitty if a stonewall a player's idea if and only if there's an actual reason for it to be stonewalled.

Like, if they have a clever solution ("We set a fire at the dungeon entrance, smoking out the goblins!") and that solution doesn't lead to the outcome they predicted (turns out there are more entrances to the cavern system that ventilate the smoke) it can lead to other, unexpected and enjoyable outcomes (Party deduces, then searches for, these ventilating alternative entrances)

I don't change things behind the scenes because that would replace the unexpected, organic outcome with one of my choosing. Meaning, in so many words, that I would dictate what constituted "acceptable" fun.

Remaining a neutral arbiter of physics and rules empowers players; it removes their agency if the world changes according to my whims.

Now, there are costs to running the way I do; you have to prep pretty intricately and there can be "dead zones" where the players genuinely encounter a no-content area (empty dungeon, f'rex). I find this preferable to the alternative, but ultimately that's a normative decision on my part as referee.

Paul Czege once said something to the effect of "It's boring if the same person who thinks of the puzzle thinks of the solution". I try to use that as a guiding principle when I prep and run.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055359I do see the merits of failing forward with, for example, the Wrath & Glory comic. If the scout fails the navigation roll and it's uninteresting/you don't want to go into them being lost or a random encounter, I see nothing wrong with the PCs arriving but they lose resources/time/equipment/etc. The reason for the failed roll could be they got lost, but you elided the time. This is a great way to move things along provided everyone at the table agrees. That's what I think is important as well as only calling for rolls when it feels appropriate. If it wasn't a threatening or difficult trek, just describe them getting there, especially if the scout is a bad-ass at scouting. (As an aside, I really love Cypher for this as players can adjust the difficulty for rolls they feel are important, to the point they pass without a roll, but it costs them. It really reflects PC proficiency)

That's a neat mechanic. I agree with you here; I don't feel that rolls should be structured in a way that "nothing happens" (a "null result") can happen with no consequences.

But that's a key point: no consequences. "Nothing happens: try again" has consequences in the proper circumstance. For example, in a dungeon, rolling to pick a lock. You can just "roll again" essentially as many times as you want... But each roll costs you time, which translates to an increased risk of the encounter dice generating a wandering monster.

In other words, the cost is time and risk of being eaten.

In third edition, they introduced mechanics that allowed you to "skip ahead" in time to generate an unrolled minimum number to add to your roll ("taking ten" or "taking twenty"). This is a different version of the mechanic you mentioned, replacing "player emphasis" with "available, risk-free time".

You can go further back, all the way to B/X (as I do) and skip the mathematical dimension altogether: If players are in a non-dangerous circumstance, they broadly can or cannot accomplish things as you'd expect a skilled person could.

Effectively the reasoning behind that mechanic has existed since the inception of the hobby.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055359I have had thankfully rare instances of things such as a vault door that stymied hacking, jury-rigging, damaging and the eventual "Fuck it, let's go through the (non-existent) vent". Given the logic of the situation it made no sense for there to be another route and a string of shit rolls stonewalled the group. That wasn't poor GMing or playing, it was bad luck and "going back to town" to get more explosives wasn't an option.

Let me share something with you: I have done this exact same thing.

However, I would consider it failing as a GM if I created a circumstance that only had a single solution. I would feel like a fool if I made a dungeon with only one entrance, to go along with your example (note I'm not calling you foolish for this; I'm just talking about how I would feel)

I would rectify this negative feeling by learning from my mistake and making a more thoroughly Jacquayed dungeon in the future https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055359Now, we eventually got in after rolling several times but that wasn't fun. In hindsight I would've been fine with a "You manage to hack the door controls but its anti-intrusion defenses damage your rig. It's got a penalty until repaired". Or simply letting us pass as that's where we needed to go and turning back wasn't really an option. Or offering a lead to a key card somehow (the most complicated but coolest, especially if said card was in the building we avoided because of the danger). I do feel these things need to be up-front and clear as well as accepted table practice, otherwise it can feel railroady and remove tension.

There's something sneaking under your radar, and I want to draw your attention to it non-critically. You're making a value judgement about something that will happen in the game (the players will or must break in to the compound).

The definition of railroading, as it applies to TTRPGs, is in that value judgement. You've decided on the outcome: the dice, the mechanics, even player agency must ultimately conform to your idea of what will happen.

Again, I'm not criticizing here: I'm trying to explain that the reason your technique there seems railroad-y, the reason I avoid using it, is because it is structurally a railroad.

Quote from: Itachi;1055364Cool. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry if I sounded harsh or offensive. Not my intention.

You totally didn't sound harsh: I certainly did though! That post was me taking stock of my tone and tone-policing myself.

Quote from: Itachi;1055364But you're still missing the important part: "This incentivizes/discourages, therefore bad"... bad in regard to what?  You can only assert something is bad in regard to the goals and purpose it has set for itself. Gumshoe goals are not making the game-space identical to real life-space, nor about the player ability to find clues in a physical scene.

According to the tagline (and I admit to lacking a deeper understanding than very cursory research regarding Gumshoe or it's goals):

"GUMSHOE is a system for designing and playing investigative roleplaying games and adventures, emulating stories where investigators uncover a series of clues, and interpret them to solve a mystery.

In a GUMSHOE game, the player characters discover something which triggers their investigation, and then the Game Moderator (GM) narrates them through a number of scenes, during which they use their Investigative Abilities to gather the core clues they need to move the narrative forward. They must then put the clues together to uncover the secrets behind the mystery."

In other words, it's a story, not a game. In this story, the players (actors) rely on the investigative skills of their avatars (characters in the story) to propel the story to its (author-chosen) outcome.

I have news for you: this is a railroad. It structurally precludes the possibility of failure so that it's pre-determined outcome inevitably will be reached.

If you find this activity satisfying, more power to you: again, I'm not here to declare that doing this is wrong or stupid. But unless there's a possibility that an outcome other than the one selected before play begins can be achieved, I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that this isn't a game: it's an ultimately linear narrative. It just happens to use dice and involve your friends.

...

Additionally:

I don't really want to "make the game-space the same as life-space". But I expect "You can do what a person can do" and "most things work, physically and socially speaking, as you'd expect them to" as elements of the design.

This is a normative value I hold: I'll cop to that being 100% my personal preference.

Things like magic can break those rules (as a matter of fact, I'd prefer cool stuff like magic in my games!) but as ultimate touchstones for players interacting with a shared, imagined world? They're very useful and teachable.

Further, I want that shared imagined world to have solidity and integrity. I don't want things to "change behind the curtains": I am the least qualified of all idiot-gods, and I do not want to be "in charge" of the game's universe.

Maybe as a creator-god, putting in dungeons and monsters and treasure, but not as an always-editing George Lucas god, constantly re-evaluating everything to fit my current mood.

Quote from: Itachi;1055364Same can be said for failing forward. I can't speak for all games that use the concept, but the ones I know are not intent on making the player/character experience identical and thus "making the player deal with dead ends because that's what happens with real persons" or something. Their goal is moving play forward to the next genre-appropriate dilemma, thus cutting off the parts that do not add or enrich those, like combats where "I miss, you miss, he misses, repeat" is frequent, or task resolutions where "I fail. Try again (and again, and again)", etc. In fact, it's actually desirable to "think like a real person would" in these games too, but they will only prompt you to do so when their authors understand its genre-relevant.

I feel like you're inserting "appeal to the boring real world" as some kind of motive or standard I possess: I don't. Stop doing that.

Instead, use your efforts to understand my standard and goal actually is: Integrity

Not personal integrity (lord knows I don't have any of that wretched stuff) but setting integrity. If I establish that there's a door, then the players can trust that there is, indeed, a door. It functions as they expect it would, and they can interact with it as they'd expect they could.

I don't need to appeal to genre to know what good, engrossing gameplay looks like: it looks like players making meaningful decisions. It looks like them risking failure and consequences. It looks like them making plans that have value because they can understand and predict the world.

They can do these things because they know I'm not changing things behind the scenes based on what I consider "genre-appropriate" or making a personal judgement over what constitutes "enriching" activities, allowing or disallowing activities based on a narrative preconception.

The imagined world isn't realistic; myths and epics never are. But it does have integrity, because I'm not constantly shifting its established facts to suit my personal creative vision.  

If you replace "integrity of the imagined world" with "integrity of the genre/story/narrative" then you place yourself in the position of author, rather than referee. You find yourself curtailing the player's freedom to interact with the setting if it doesn't conform to the "plot" of your "story"

Is this bad? For me it is. Again, that's a normative judgement of mine. But when we talk about game structure, we should be concrete about these fundamental assumptions.

Quote from: Itachi;1055364To;dr: you can only judge something based on the goals it's set for itself. And not all games have "equaling player-character space" as a goal.

It's not too long, and I did read it and consider it carefully (your effort in writing it is worth at least that, in my estimation!)

Let me rephrase, one final time, my central counter-point to your post: You applied the idea of "equaling player-character space" as a goal, not me.

I want the risk of true failure. I want player's plans to matter independent of me deciding they matter. I want a game free of a normatively-chosen end-state.

I want these things because I believe (and have some evidence to support) that they make a more robust, tactically engrossing, challenging, immersive, and satisfying play experience.

And I don't want an RPG with "a narrative" with "an author", because If believe (and again, can argumentatively support) that it removes player agency, curtails genuine investment in the activity, and introduces volumes of systemic problems that are not only undesirable, they're totally unnecessary.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055366Alright, I misunderstood the argument I was responding to.

That's okay; I do that all the time!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055366I do not believe that realism is appropriate for media entertainment. If people failed as much in fiction as they do in real life, fiction would be much more boring and pointless. Whenever people in fiction fail, the story still moves forward. It does not waste the reader's time (at least not if the editor is competent).

That's true... Kind of. I'm fine with the "miss-miss-miss" combats described up-thread because, when you're fighting for your life in a monster-haunted dungeon, those near-misses are rich fodder for genuine tension.

If you're actually risking your life when you pick up the dice, there's a moment of real exhilaration when you pick up your attack dice; a moment of true disappointment and worry when you miss. A moment of real fear as the foe throws their attack, and a moment of genuine relief and hope when they miss.

All this from the dice; let alone a good, tense description of near-misses and close calls.

If not making progress towards the fortress means a real risk of freezing to death, then there's real terror in picking up the dice and a moment of genuine triumph if you succeed. I don't feel like that's a waste of time

Although perhaps you're not talking about those circumstances: you're maybe talking about "we stay out here in the cold while you hack the terminal"

It'd be a lot more fun if "you fail" was followed by "it gets darker, and the cold gets deadlier". Maybe an occasional "you hear the howling of mutant wolves in the distance". Add in a dash of "Hey, is that an access port up there on the mountainside?" that you could add in if there was more than one way in to the fortress (if the scenario designer hadn't provided a solution, but a puzzle)

I don't need fail forward for that: I could have (and constantly do) all of that with B/X. Again, all of this has existed in the hobby for a long time.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055366In traditional tabletop games, like Monopoly or Candyland or Go Fish, players always make some kind of progress including negative progress.

I really like this characterization of games: it sort-of divides them into three broad states:

Negative progress ("We go further away from the fort because of a bad roll")

Null progress ("nothing changes")

Positive progress ("We get closer to the fort")

However, when you consider it, you can't really get that middle one: inevitably, something happens when you embark on your journey.

Time passes in the cold as you wander around lost. You get caught in a snow drift. You fall into an underground ice cave. You get attacked by mutant wolves.

So really, when you drill down into that analysis, what you find is that you're always making positive progress towards something happening.

The only thing fail-forward does is tell you that the GM will custom deliver this content to you. The way I structure games, this is redundant: every hex has a status quo of something happening there, every dungeon is full of rooms, every chunk of time passing risks an encounter throw with a nearby denizen.

So structurally, there's no need for fail-forward if you make a game that consistently delivers this kind of content.

Note, the potential for "empty rooms" (or null content, if you will) exists, but this is desirable; sometimes characters need to rest, or plan, or do something other than whatever the core thing of the game is. This makes "null" content into a resource for the players; it's strategically appealing to encounter a defensible location in the depths of a hostile dungeon!  

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055366So I subscribe wholeheartedly to what I prefer to call the "pass/pass" philosophy. Whenever players roll to randomly determine the outcome of an action, it should either be something good or something bad that moves the adventure forward either way.

We are in total agreement here, I just wanted to point out.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055366The outcome should never be a waste of the party's time because this is a game played for entertainment. Using your examples: overlooking a secret has horrible consequences (e.g. the bomb explodes, the assassination succeeds, the nation falls, etc); failing to solve the mystery has horrible consequences (e.g. the werewolf eats the entire village, the ghost kills everyone in the mansion, the serial killer keeps killing, etc); being shunned forces the characters to resort to violence.

Exactly! Perfect!

But (and this is a significant but): don't make a judgment call on what "wastes the party's time". Learning the hard way is still learning; wasting time means something you didn't anticipate happens, not that "nothing happens"
Was it a waste of time to go upstairs instead of down? It wasn't what the party should have done to kill the vampire sleeping in the basement; but they did risk an encounter with his ghouls up there (and a thrilling combat).

Or maybe they encountered nothing but a hayloft and learned, simply "the vampire's not here": enterprising players also learned that they had a great location to set up an ambush!

If I judged the hayloft a "waste of time" and excised it from the barn, they wouldn't have gotten that opportunity.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055366Alright, I misunderstood the argument I was responding to.

I do not believe that realism is appropriate for media entertainment. If people failed as much in fiction as they do in real life, fiction would be much more boring and pointless. Whenever people in fiction fail, the story still moves forward. It does not waste the reader's time (at least not if the editor is competent).

I don't think this has much to do with realism or not. There are plenty of people who do, in fact, read non-fiction for entertainment - biographies, travelogues, true crime, war stories, and so forth. Within non-fiction, it is equally true that the writer doesn't waste the reader's time - if the editor is competent.

Within RPGs, the core issue I think is repeated rolls versus a single decisive roll.

Azraele, I do not want to fuck with whittling down your reply on my tablet, so I will address the bits about railroading and "dungeon design". Firstly, it's not really railroading to me because the PCs belong there, by player or plot choice. In an upcoming session of our GeneSys game, the PCs will eventually go to this ziggurat one of them had dark dreams about. It will happen. Too much time has been invested, both playing and in the narrative, not to have them get there. It would be narratively dissonant otherwise. However, along the way things might go better or poorly based on their choices and dice rolls. It may take more time or resources than they want, adjusting what's ahead. In fact, a PC was arrested last session which could hamper their travels, warn the villain(s), ruin alliances or simply bring them harm. That's up in the air, but...barring something drastic...getting to the ziggurat (assuming it exists) will happen, mostly because they won't stop until it's found.

A quick bit is when I do wish railroad I just do it right off. For example, "After a long journey through hyperspace you break atmo on AV-829. A quick scan reveals the only structure, which must be the Archon's laboratory. You land a few miles away, staying under the radar, then walk to your destination. A few hours later the massive vault doors to the structure loom above you, clearly locked...what do you do?". From there we just see where it goes. That's probably not your style but we all enjoy it, so it works, eh?

As far as rerolling and taking more time, I don't use random encounters nor do I prep details, so I often find rolling again and again to be boring. That probably (most likely?) stems from the three systems I most enjoy: Forged in the Dark, Cypher and GeneSys, all which guide a lot of the outcomes and that I can quickly couple with my ideas on-the-fly. I'm a highly improvisational GM and set up a framework and sandbox of things that might be around, then see what strikes my fancy, where the dice fall and what things the players come up with, all through the lens of the mechanics.

The way you handle things makes sense and I respect it. I can learn from it, which I'm always happy to do. I have changed my GMing a lot over the years, coming to desire faster, more improvised play.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1055214What games mechanically support "success at a cost." Where the player can CHOOSE to succeed by making things worse for themselves.

Blades in the Dark and Cypher both have the option in their foundation. Bit of a "how much do you really want it" kind of thing.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1055425Blades in the Dark and Cypher both have the option in their foundation. Bit of a "how much do you really want it" kind of thing.

Any game where a player can choose a better chance of success at the "expense" of falling for a beautiful, naked woman is choice, eh? Sweet, stupid Ivan...

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055441Any game where a player can choose a better chance of success at the "expense" of falling for a beautiful, naked woman is choice, eh? Sweet, stupid Ivan...

Hey! That kinda worked out for Ivan.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1055444Hey! That kinda worked out for Ivan.

Yes, it did. Too bad half the crew thought releasing starving, insane shark-demons was a good idea, eh?

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055445Yes, it did. Too bad half the crew thought releasing starving, insane shark-demons was a good idea, eh?

Eh. Cut down on the homeless problem.

Quote from: Azraele;1055250I disagree with you. I'm not discussing the emotions of the players or their belief, I'm talking about the presence or absence of consequence in the game. Gumshoe violates this just as much as any other fail-forward; the players of the game know that, structurally, they can act in a way that the game's assumed reality will guarantee an outcome. They wouldn't know this even in a diceless game like Amber; they would only know that they could unfailingly investigate to a certain degree of capability, not that they were assured of progress in the investigation.

If the entire game is structured such that the characters "always succeed", with whatever consequence, at the "right" tasks, then you're structurally creating a game that discourages actually using or developing that skill for the players. Do you need to know anything about investigating to succeed at investigating in Gumshoe? No? Then by the same coin, using good investigation strategies won't benefit you: you fall back on "how well my CHARACTER investigates", ignoring half of the player/avatar dynamic.

In the comic, the characters cannot fail to get through the tundra, and the techpriest cannot fail to hack. That means you, as the GM, can't make an adventure out of either of those things; no actual logic puzzle to challenge the player at the hacking terminal, no actual map of the terrain for the guardsman to plan an optimal route through. Just rely on the unfailing strength of your avatar to succeed. This means the only real question asked by the game, of the players, is "Can you afford the price of not instantaneous victory?" and if the answer is "yes", you will get the next chunk of content.

Dying in the snow is fun, goddamnit. It makes getting through the snow an actual obstacle both in and out of game. That has nothing to do with my taste; that's a structural fact of excluding "fail forward" from a game's design.

Dying in the snow is fine. If your character extends only so far as "This is Thud, lvl 1 Barbarian. He's dead? Here's Thug, lvl 1 Barbarian". Xerox copies dropping like flies in the opening act is fine if they're shallow.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1055453Dying in the snow is fine. If your character extends only so far as "This is Thud, lvl 1 Barbarian. He's dead? Here's Thug, lvl 1 Barbarian". Xerox copies dropping like flies in the opening act is fine if they're shallow.

You find it incentivizes certain things

Like players developing their characters through the course of the campaign, rather than frontloading them with a backstory from the start

And playing more conservatively and intelligently as they emotionally invest in their character

And treating the game's world as a serious, threatening place with lasting consequences

I find that stuff desirable: it's completely understandable that someone might not feel the same way