D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

It's not to do what they want, but to give them opportunities to explore the things that they want, based on the characters and world they burnt prior to play. It's a question of honoring the priorities that the players have indicated. The GM is part of world-burning, and that is an opportunity to say "this is what I want to explore as GM," but once the situation is agreed upon and the characters are burned, the GM's role is to frame scenes to make the players make hard choices about what they've said their characters believe. If you're not hitting those beliefs as GM, then the reward cycle that makes advancement possible won't work, and the game will feel static. I think I said it earlier, but BW is really unforgiving/fragile when you don't play it as written. This isn't how I'd run D&D or a lot of other games, at all, but BW demands specific handling.

I don't really see a significant difference in what you wrote over what I surmised, which is just more evidence of how much this and similar games are definitely not for me.

Also, do "burnt" and "burned" refer to character generation? I thought it was a typo. If not, I don't really understand the value of using new world to represent such a basic part of RPGs.

 

[Enrahim2]

If you're not hitting those beliefs as GM, then the reward cycle that makes advancement possible won't work, and the game will feel static. I think I said it earlier, but BW is really unforgiving/fragile when you don't play it as written. This isn't how I'd run D&D or a lot of other games, at all, but BW demands specific handling.

I thought part of the drive in BW was that the players were also responsible for bringing their beliefs into play? That is, it is good if the GM helps, but if the GM is not helpful the players still can work to make the tings the GM narrate into something that affects their beliefs (and hence keeps the artha flowing)

 

[Manbearcat]

because you suceeded on your roll the spellbooks are now there in that location, because you looked for them there, rather than in any other number of possible locations that they maybe 'should' of been in if you had of been following the cause and effect of the narrative of the world itself rather than the narrative of the players, the spellbooks were allowed to be found on that bookshelf or whereever they were found becuase they weren't actually anywhere before that moment, which is what i'm talking about when referring to the 'grey featureless blob' of the world, anything can appear anywhere because nothing is anywhere until it get's established that it's somewhere, and for people who value the integrity of a world the knowledge that basically anything can be made to appear anywhere on the rolling of the dice violently shatters their immersion.

This is why these threads are so acrimonious. The seeming line of demarcation for you (and those who hold the same priorities) is "people who value the integrity of a world." The primary issue with this framing is that its a misdiagnosis and that misdiagnosis make it impossible to communicate.

There is absolutely no way to converse about this that won't get your (and @Micah Sweet 's and others) hackles up and make you feel condescended to. But the reality is, its not you valuing the integrity of a world that (a) separates us or (b) makes these conversations fraught. I value the integrity of a world. @pemerton , @Campbell , @hawkeyefan , @AbdulAlhazred value the integrity of a world (all of which I'm certain of because I've run, and run, games for them). The valuing of the integrity of a world isn't what divides us. Its that you (and @Micah Sweet et al) have a particular brand of Simulation/Immersionist priorities whereby you guys' particular mental framing of the internal causality of an imagined world is absolutely foundational for you to play at all. Its a cognitive framing effect; causality, content generation, resolution mechanics must have a particular "fit" or the game becomes "jarring" (as I've heard it called plenty of times).

The other side of this values integrity of the world. The other side doesn't run games with worlds as grey featureless blobs. The other side just doesn't share your cognitive framework when it comes to internal causality and imagined spaces or the way that particular framing effect places particular demands and constraints upon content generation and resolution mechanics specifically and game engines generally.

Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Stonetop, Dogs in the Vineyard, Thousand Arrows, Blades in the Dark, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, Mouse Guard, Cortex+, D&D 4e (etc) don't feature play possessed of grey featureless blobs of worlds without integrity. But they aren't Sim/Immersionist games governed by a metaplot and high resolution backstory and setting parameters that are primary (often overriding) inputs onto play. Consequently, as game engines/procedures/principles/set of techniques used to produce play, they would be "jarring" for you because they don't array themselves in line with your cognitive demands.

---

TLDR; its this kind of misdiagnosing of our differences that makes these conversations difficult. One side doesn't value integrity of a world while the other doesn't. One side has a particular brand of Sim/Immersionist priorities and demands a particular configuration of constraints be placed upon game engines, type/kind/frequency of content introduction, zoom, GMing techniques (etc) follow from that. The other side doesn't share those priorities or the cognitive framing (whether chicken or egg) that it entails.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It make sense to be here as one of the main parts of the conversation is players not used to other games than D&D I think this thread would have been quite dead if there had only been people having experience in narrative games participating.

Oh I don't know. It covers similar ground to the "Why do RPG'S have rules" thread @pemerton started in General, including more heavy emphasis on Narrative/Storygames, and that certainly seems to be active.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Duped post.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is why these threads are so acrimonious. The seeming line of demarcation for you (and those who hold the same priorities) is "people who value the integrity of a world." The primary issue with this framing is that its a misdiagnosis and that misdiagnosis make it impossible to communicate.

There is absolutely no way to converse about this that won't get your (and @Micah Sweet 's and others) hackles up and make you feel condescended to. But the reality is, its not you valuing the integrity of a world that (a) separates us or (b) makes these conversations fraught. I value the integrity of a world. @pemerton , @Campbell , @hawkeyefan , @AbdulAlhazred value the integrity of a world (all of which I'm certain of because I've run, and run, games for them). The valuing of the integrity of a world isn't what divides us. Its that you (and @Micah Sweet et al) have a particular brand of Simulation/Immersionist priorities whereby you guys' particular mental framing of the internal causality of an imagined world is absolutely foundational for you to play at all. Its a cognitive framing effect; causality, content generation, resolution mechanics must have a particular "fit" or the game becomes "jarring" (as I've heard it called plenty of times).

The other side of this values integrity of the world. The other side doesn't run games with worlds as grey featureless blobs. The other side just doesn't share your cognitive framework when it comes to internal causality and imagined spaces or the way that particular framing effect places particular demands and constraints upon content generation and resolution mechanics specifically and game engines generally.

Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Stonetop, Dogs in the Vineyard, Thousand Arrows, Blades in the Dark, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, Mouse Guard, Cortex+, D&D 4e (etc) don't feature play possessed of grey featureless blobs of worlds without integrity. But they aren't Sim/Immersionist games governed by a metaplot and high resolution backstory and setting parameters that are primary (often overriding) inputs onto play. Consequently, as game engines/procedures/principles/set of techniques used to produce play, they would be "jarring" for you because they don't array themselves in line with your cognitive demands.

---

TLDR; its this kind of misdiagnosing of our differences that makes these conversations difficult. One side doesn't value integrity of a world while the other doesn't. One side has a particular brand of Sim/Immersionist priorities and demands a particular configuration of constraints be placed upon game engines, type/kind/frequency of content introduction, zoom, GMing techniques (etc) follow from that. The other side doesn't share those priorities or the cognitive framing (whether chicken or egg) that it entails.

I completely agree. There's no happy medium here. We can perhaps respect the fact that we have different styles, but we can't really talk about them.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I think + thread explaining other games might work, just not sure it belongs on this forum.

How much players contribute to the overall campaign building might be another, along with a survey. I just suspect it might devolve into the camps we've seen.

Not sure what else, a lot of this has just been back-an forth variants of those two.

 

[soviet]

I completely agree. There's no happy medium here. We can perhaps respect the fact that we have different styles, but we can't really talk about them.

We can talk about them. It's not an unbridgeable divide. The people on the 'storygames' side of the field almost all got there through more traditional play, and many of us (me included) still play and enjoy that kind of play now.

But having that discussion requires a recognition that the characteristics of one's own play are not axiomatic of the hobby, such that something featuring different characteristics isn't automatically artificial, immersion-breaking, hollow, unworkable without a group full of theatrically talented players, etc etc. It requires an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of one's own playstyle.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think + thread explaining other games might work, just not sure it belongs on this forum.

How much players contribute to the overall campaign building might be another, along with a survey. I just suspect it might devolve into the camps we've seen.

Not sure what else, a lot of this has just been back-an forth variants of those two.

I'm sadly uncertain there would be much interest outside of the usual suspects in a narrative/storygame thread where you're not allowed to be critical. This is a very fraught topic, where each side thinks the other is disrespecting their preference.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We can talk about them. It's not an unbridgeable divide. The people on the 'storygames' side of the field almost all got there through more traditional play, and many of us (me included) still play and enjoy that kind of play now.

But having that discussion requires a recognition that the characteristics of one's own play are not axiomatic of the hobby, such that something featuring different characteristics isn't automatically artificial, immersion-breaking, hollow, unworkable without a group full of theatrically talented players, etc etc. It requires an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of one's own playstyle.

Any evidence that something like that is forthcoming? I'm talking practical conversation here.