Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101571I've already pointed out why this scenario is not a critical test. No one could throw the ring into the fire, thus there is no test to make. All of your "choices" spring from a false assumption.

He doesn't care. He's not even listening really and his replies are only to the strawmen he's created of our statements.

He just wants his Antiplot RPG where no one can ever truly fail (just succeed with cost) if the GM wants them to succeed (and conversely if the "plot" demands it they can never succeed unless the GM wants them to either) and is frustrated that no one else seems to think its anything other than pure crap.

The worst part I just realized there's a far superior game out there already that already does EVERYTHING Alex wants to accomplish with his hair-brained heroic luck meta-currency, only with the ability to set up the actual complex themes and morality play element which actually underlie those stories.

It's called Amber.

Quote from: jhkimBut I don't think that the RPG is inherently trivial or meaningless compared to the novel. It's meaning just comes through different processes.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101560Lord of the Rings wasn't written on a Sunday afternoon. It was mulled many times over. Surely Tolkien didn't waste all those years?
And the people who watch and play Critical Role - don't they do it primarily for the adventure?

Spontaneously created content can occasionally be golden, yes. But on average it's highly unpolished.

Polished isn't the same as meaningful. Any personal creative activity I do isn't polished at the time that I'm doing it, but it's often more meaningful than passively consuming someone else's creativity - even a classic, polished novel.

Quote from: Chris24601;1101580The worst part I just realized there's a far superior game out there already that already does EVERYTHING Alex wants to accomplish ... only with the ability to set up the actual complex themes and morality play element which actually underlie those stories. It's called Amber.

How exactly does Amber do that? Because as far as I know, the only thing Amber does is incentivize PvP through it's atribute auction in chargen, and then leave everything to players once play begins. Where is that "actual complex themes and morality element" in Amber?

Edit: oh, and..

Quote from: Chris24601As to heroic luck as employed in Classical plot construction... we already have that; they're called Hit Points

This is nonsense. Hit Points are based on naval hulls from wargames that Gygax and Arneson knew at the time. Nothing do to with "classical heroic luck".

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101571I've already pointed out why this scenario is not a critical test. No one could throw the ring into the fire, thus there is no test to make. All of your "choices" spring from a false asumption.

Since the whole thing was just cause for a thought experiment to see if the protagonist failing but the campaign not ending in disaster was workable in an RPG (a special type of Failing Forward), you're not adding to the conversation, you're just showing-off. And even THAT is ignoring that the citation you provided by no means proves that Frodo could have never cast the ring into the fire. If you got some better quote though, let's hear it, even though it's not relevant to the thought experiment itself.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101571Next time I suggest using a more appropriate example. I even gave you one earlier. The test was made when Frodo chose to spare gollum.

That doesn't apply to the thought experiment though. If you were less busy demonstrating your knowledge of LotR, you might have noticed that.

Quote from: Chris24601;1101580and his replies are only to the strawmen he's created of our statements.

He just wants his Antiplot RPG where no one can ever truly fail (just succeed with cost) if the GM wants them to succeed (and conversely if the "plot" demands it they can never succeed unless the GM wants them to either) and is frustrated that no one else seems to think its anything other than pure crap.

I had just posted:
"One possible set-up: if the Frodo player passes the test, he can throw down the Ring, if he fails Sauron wins and the campaign ends.
Another: if the Frodo player passes the test, he can throw down the Ring, if he fails Sam can still save the world by declaring to tackle Gollum, tumbling down with him and the ring. (Success-at-a-Cost)
Another: if the Frodo player passes the test, he can throw down the Ring, if he fails (or, say, he automatically succumbs) Gollum will jump at him and grapple with him for control and we'll simulate the situation from there..
Another: if the Frodo player passes the test, he can throw down the Ring, if he fails Gollum will jump at him and take control of the ring. If Frodo still has a Fate Point, he can force an Agility test on Gollum, else the world ends (same if Gollum passes the test). If Gollum fails, he tumbles to his death with the ring. (Saved by shrewd performance during the scenario prior, allowing to retain a Fate Point.)
All of these are valid, workable variants some of which may be more appealing to some gamers than others; they're certainly not the only ways to handle the event of Frodo bringing the [ring to the] chasm."

Quote from: jhkim;1101586Polished isn't the same as meaningful. Any personal creative activity I do isn't polished at the time that I'm doing it, but it's often more meaningful than passively consuming someone else's creativity - even a classic, polished novel.

I mean... it depends on what is meaningful for the person in question. Some people write songs to deal with depression or loss and so the act of self-expression is meaningful to them. For me, getting a new angle on the fundamental nature of life is meaningful, for example. I think I had one or two such moments watching Game of Thrones but I can't recall the last time I had that in a game.

Beyond those two examples for ways of finding meaning in creative endeavours I am sure there are many, many more out there. But I guess the above explains at least my skepticism. Plus, personally, I find the power of mercy theme in Tolkien's story not too profound either. Otoh, if the intention was to advocate being merciful to younger readers in particular, it's probably an effective approach, so I have no quibble.

Quote from: Itachi;1101595This is nonsense. Hit Points are based on naval hulls from wargames that Gygax and Arneson knew at the time. Nothing do to with "classical heroic luck".

I don't know. I mean the basic purpose is to increase the survivability of heroes beyond that of common man. (The funny part is all the charges leveled against metacurrency as suspension-undermining could be leveled against hitpoints just as well. It's a safety net.) But even if we look purely at the luck side of hitpoints and ignore its nonsensical mixing with health, we find that hitpoints just reflect a subset of the luck heroes have in fantasy stories: the luck of escaping being seriously wounded or killed, at least initially, until your luck runs out.

But it's very easy to demonstrate that this is just one of many ways in which heroic luck works (and in fact I have given an example above with Jon Snow suddenly finding a hammer), so hitpoints are not an accurate representation. It's incomplete.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101608Since the whole thing was just cause for a thought experiment to see if the protagonist failing but the campaign not ending in disaster was workable in an RPG (a special type of Failing Forward), you're not adding to the conversation, you're just showing-off. And even THAT is ignoring that the citation you provided by no means proves that Frodo could have never cast the ring into the fire. If you got some better quote though, let's hear it, even though it's not relevant to the thought experiment itself.

1. Why would you want to see a citation that isn't relevant?

2. Your experiment fails because you are misinterpreting the events at Mount Doom.

QuoteThat doesn't apply to the thought experiment though. If you were less busy demonstrating your knowledge of LotR, you might have noticed that.

Then come up with a more appropriate example. All you've managed to do so far is demonstrate how trying to simulate a static narrative like LOTR requires deforming the narrative with band-aid mechanics like "fail-forward".
Perhaps a better approach would be to look at Tolkien's themes and see how an RPG scenario could emulate them.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;11016221. Why would you want to see a citation that isn't relevant?

Because if true it would be an interesting bit of trivia.

"It was indissoluble in any fire, save the undying subterranean fire where it was made–and that was unapproachable, in Mordor. Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. So he thought. It was in any case on his finger."

I have no idea why you think that this is a quote in favor of your assertion, just like I don't get why you think quoting a statement made by a non-omniscient character in the fiction stating that success was remote (implying that it's not impossible) is of any use to you.

I was hoping for something more unambiguous, to be quite frank.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;11016222. Your experiment fails because you are misinterpreting the events at Mount Doom.

It cannot fail because of that since Lord of the Rings was no more than inspiration for the thought experiment. We can re-evaluate it without taking any recourse to that particular story since all we need is:
- protagonist fails at crucial moment and
- a catastrophic ending is averted anyway.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101622Then come up with a more appropriate example. All you've managed to do so far is demonstrate how trying to simulate a static narrative like LOTR requires deforming the narrative with band-aid mechanics like "fail-forward".

You're missing the point. Nobody wants to recreate the narrative of LOTR. The point of simulationism is well-encapsulated in that quote from the podcast:
"I found this to be very good at emulating the trilogy [...] it felt like I was in a new story in Middle Earth."

Combining the familiar (recognition value) with the new. If you have mechanics that help produce fiction like your static narrative, at least the adventuring side of it, you can write different scenarios and nonetheless help your players feel like they're "in a new story in Middle Earth" through these mechanics.

As an aside, that's also why Indiana Jones would be the best well-known setting for PbtA's Success-with-Complications - there's huge recognition value in that because it happens to Indy all the fucking time.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101622Perhaps a better approach would be to look at Tolkien's themes and see how an RPG scenario could emulate them.

Theme is more a question of scenario design than rules design. Rules can lend a helping hand here, yes, but the main thing is the scenario itself. Plus, as mentioned before, my top priority is getting the adventuring side right, not having less useful mechanics like D&D hitpoints (complete with healing magic and potions) get in the way of that. And heroic luck helps me do that.

Let's not forget that the most important quality to simulationism is a negative one: the absence of mechanics that induce fiction that conflicts with whatever you're simulating. Case-in-point: MERP/Rolemaster's magic system in a MERP campaign.

Unironically, the thread that started with One-true-wayism now is brought down by One-true-wayism.

I'm out.

P.S: Alexander, try to be more concise in yiur posts. You have good ideas and reasoning but when each paragraph is a bible, it becomes a tiresome reading.

Quote from: Itachi;1101595This is nonsense. Hit Points are based on naval hulls from wargames that Gygax and Arneson knew at the time. Nothing do to with "classical heroic luck".

I heard it was AC that came from the naval hulls and hit points came instead from traditional wargaming units where a single miniature might represent dozens of men. The idea was that as a character levelled up, they'd be worth more than one. That becomes your hit dice and hit points are a randomisation on top of that. As far as I'm aware, the luck / fate rationalisation came later.

Back to Fail Forward, I think there are two ideas getting crossed. One is the idea of Fail Forward as a deliberate game mechanic. The other is the idea that failure is not always the end of a game.

With the example of Frodo and the ring, Fail Forward would suggest that if you fail your objective you might still get what you want at a cost. He fails to destroy the ring himself, but the ring is still destroyed and he loses a finger. As a player, I know that would feel like a cop-out.

But normal failure would suggest that Frodo puts the ring on and becomes possessed by it. You now have options: the player takes on the role and objectives of the ring, or the player loses control and continues with a new character, or existing NPC, etc. The first is a good choice if you have a player who likes that kind of role play. The same situations might play out naturally, or something else entirely. It might not be the story but it also might not be less interesting for it. It will however, be your story to tell to your descendants should you survive.

What if the player succeeds? Natural 20. Frodo throws the ring into the fire. Now Gollum has nothing to do. Maybe he just jumps in after the ring? Maybe the ring loses its hold over him too.

None of this requires Fail Forward as a mechanic. That is only required if you want to force the story to follow your predetermined plot.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101678"It was indissoluble in any fire, save the undying subterranean fire where it was made–and that was unapproachable, in Mordor. Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. So he thought. It was in any case on his finger."

And yet, it was Gollum's neglect that let it fall into Bilbo's hands. And Bilbo passed it on to Frodo, with a bit of encouragement from Gandalf. Sam, also was able to give it up, even after wearing it. Gandalf, Galadriel, and Aragorn were all able to refuse it even when it was freely offered. And Tom Bombadil was entirely untouched.

Quote from: mightybrain;1101838With the example of Frodo and the ring, Fail Forward would suggest that if you fail your objective you might still get what you want at a cost. He fails to destroy the ring himself, but the ring is still destroyed and he loses a finger. As a player, I know that would feel like a cop-out.

I agree. However, the reason why it would feel like a cop-out is because the cost involved here is so little. That's why one of my alternative suggestions was that the Sam player has one final chance to stop Gollum but only at the cost of taking his character down with him. I surely would feel badly as Frodo player if a friend had to sacrifice their beloved PC only because I failed the pivotal roll. So that might work for me.

In essence, Success-at-a-Cost allows you risk management, since you can set the costs anywhere between marginal and full-blown catastrophe. It sure beats "fudging the dice because the GM can't commit to the stakes he originally set out."

Quote from: mightybrain;1101838None of this requires Fail Forward as a mechanic. That is only required if you want to force the story to follow your predetermined plot.

...which is sometimes a fine thing to do.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101862I agree. However, the reason why it would feel like a cop-out is because the cost involved here is so little. That's why one of my alternative suggestions was that the Sam player has one final chance to stop Gollum but only at the cost of taking his character down with him. I surely would feel badly as Frodo player if a friend had to sacrifice their beloved PC only because I failed the pivotal roll. So that might work for me.

In essence, Success-at-a-Cost allows you risk management, since you can set the costs anywhere between marginal and full-blown catastrophe. It sure beats "fudging the dice because the GM can't commit to the stakes he originally set out."



...which is sometimes a fine thing to do.

if by sometimes we mean almost never.

Quote from: mightybrain;1101838I heard it was AC that came from the naval hulls and hit points came instead from traditional wargaming units where a single miniature might represent dozens of men. The idea was that as a character levelled up, they'd be worth more than one.

That makes sense. That sort of mechanic is still used in wargames, such as Lion Rampant. The figures in the unit are removed as damage is taken, as a visual representation of how much strength the unit has remaining... and solitary figures, command and such, will have a few more points than the average infantry figure.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101862the reason why it would feel like a cop-out is because the cost involved here is so little.

No, the reason it would feel like a cop-out is because it would be the like the DM reaching into the game to make sure that you can't fail. The thrill is in risking everything.

[video=youtube;PMFAOvzkcEs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFAOvzkcEs[/youtube]

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101678Because if true it would be an interesting bit of trivia.

"It was indissoluble in any fire, save the undying subterranean fire where it was made–and that was unapproachable, in Mordor. Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. So he thought. It was in any case on his finger."

I have no idea why you think that this is a quote in favor of your assertion, just like I don't get why you think quoting a statement made by a non-omniscient character in the fiction stating that success was remote (implying that it's not impossible) is of any use to you.

I was hoping for something more unambiguous, to be quite frank.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse, and this topic is getting very tiresome.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101961I think you're being intentionally obtuse, and this topic is getting very tiresome.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse.  

Even Bullwinkle (of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame) knows that the hero is supposed to arrive in the 'Ta-Dah' Nick of Time.  

In a standard adventure, there's really no reason why the PCs shouldn't arrive 3 days before or 3 days after the cultists have begun their dark ritual.  But narrative concerns indicate that the PCs arriving in the 'ta-dah' nick of time is more interesting for the players and the game.  Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE takes some narrative considerations with their game.  It may become a point of pride to pretend that they don't, but ultimately every example I have seen ultimately boils down to simple obfuscation.