D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Lanefan]

No, YOU are missing the point! Game worlds DO NOT EXIST! They do not abide by ANY laws of any sort whatsoever,

It's often far easier, however, to just treat them as if they do exist, and proceed.

they are simply tools of our imagination to which no causal processes of any sort whatsoever can ever logically be attached, PERIOD. This is not some sort of 'philosophical point' or opinion. This is bare hard cold fact. Your notes about play, which include descriptions, essentially instructions, about what to imagine in order to play, and the ideas in the other people's heads when they do this imagining, etc. Those are real. When you say something at the table those words have actual causal effects, which may include changes in the state of the imaginations of the players. However, there CANNOT LOGICALLY BE any connection between one imaginary event and another, no causal link between them.

Yes there can be, and is. Where, you ask? Within the imagined game world itself, which is where a lot of us are looking when we think about these things.

If in the fiction I have my character chop down a tree, then my imaginary axe blows plus gravity cause that imaginary tree to fall over. Cause ==> effect.

And if at the table we all agree that this in-fiction effect naturally follows from this in-fiction cause then for all intents and purposes that cause-effect sequence might as well be real; as henceforth that's how it will appear in our memories. (memories of reality and memories of imaginations being, in the end, just memories)

No necessity that one thing follow from another. Without understanding this, you are simply not going to understand RPGs in any objective fashion!

Sorry, not buying this.

 

[Irlo]

I (possibly) mistyped one word, and pemerton appeared to break down, completely unable to understand what I was talking about. Even though they have supposedly played in AD&D and D&D, both of which accept that the words are, occasionally, used interchangeably.

Does playing Burning Wheel cause you to forget everything about all other RPGs?

To be fair, you mistyped “PC” when you meant “player” (as in, “the PCs describe the tower,” and when he asked if you meant “player” you said you did indeed mean “PC.”

I think you never did get a good answer to your questions about the accepted limits on GM’s description — an answer I’m eager to hear.

 

[Aldarc]

Edit. Done.

 

[Umbran]

We were talking about pemerton .....

Also? Rude.

Mod Note:
After insulting someone, complaining about others being rude is... not a good look.

You're done in this discussion.

Folks, I remind you - Don't. Make. It. Personal.

 

[Enrahim2]

In BW, if the scene of them traveling to town doesn't touch upon one of the characters' beliefs, then it shouldn't be part of play. If the travel scene does target their beliefs, then I don't have a problem with this being part of the GM's framing, but the scene can't linger there -- unless it's the past that is targeting the players' beliefs. That said, typically, I wouldn't bring up abandoned farms unless it was part of the situation we'd agreed upon prior to play. I might describe farms, but not much else.

This was what kicked off my exchange with pemerton:

For instance: if the GM describes to the players that they see some beggars by the city gates, and the GM thinks to themself but doesn't say to the players, "The reason for those beggars is that they've been driven off their farmland by the evil overlord", then part of the setting includes that the evil overlord has driven people of their farmland, turning them into beggars.

A question here is - if the evil overlord is somehow tied to a character's belief, would it be acceptable to use the potential connection between the overlord outlined here as a justification for framing a scene with the beggars? In that case the same could be said for the passing mention of abandoned farms. Indeed failing to mention the abandoned farms upon traveling to the town might be an issue if the players actually latch on to the beggar - evil overlord connection. In this case the presence or not of abandoned farms might suddenly be important, and it might become somewhat strange that that this wasn't mentioned when first passing by.

 

[Aldarc]

What would be a good way forward with this thread? Would the interests of this thread be better served by a spin-off thread that focused on one particular aspect of discussion?

 

[Oofta]

What would be a good way forward with this thread? Would the interests of this thread be better served by a spin-off thread that focused on one particular aspect of discussion?

Is there any specific topic that hasn't just hit the rinse-and-repeat cycle?

 

[Enrahim2]

What would be a good way forward with this thread? Would the interests of this thread be better served by a spin-off thread that focused on one particular aspect of discussion?

I feel like the sense of chaos here fits extremely well with the thread title That said, I actually feel like this thread keep making new sprouts, that are relatively short lived, but do revolve around a common theme of the possible powers GMs and players can (not should) wield over various parts of the fiction. Few of the sub-threads have involved more than 2-3 people as far as I have seen, and as such haven't really warranted any full spin-off thread in my mind. I'd say keep letting it live it's own life without trying to meta it into something.

 

[Aldarc]

Is there any specific topic that hasn't just hit the rinse-and-repeat cycle?

Maybe. Maybe not. To a certain extent, I don't mind. For example, I do earnestly believe that the two of us understand each other better now than (let's say) five years ago. I'm not the biggest fan of having to rehash descriptions of game mechanics for the umpteenth time, but I think that even respecting each other's respective game preferences is a step in the right direction. Believe it or not, I do think that the language we have used to talk about our respective preferences has improved, not without rough patches, but it has improved nevertheless. So that does give me some hope.

Some people have voiced an interest in certain aspects of the discussion, learning about different games, or contrasts of play. Regardless if the burning wheel keeps on turning just as it always has, I'm just wondering if their interests would be better served by another thread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I (possibly) mistyped one word, and pemerton appeared to break down, completely unable to understand what I was talking about. Even though they have supposedly played in AD&D and D&D, both of which accept that the words are, occasionally, used interchangeably.

Does playing Burning Wheel cause you to forget everything about all other RPGs?

Perhaps being able to distinguish between players and characters when speaking helps make things clearer? I think part of the problem is that you’re not making the distinction that @pemerton is. If you’re reading his posts with the assumption that he’s using characters and players interchangeably, as you use them, that’s probably the cause.

I say this only to try and help explain.