D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not how pemerton phrased it--when combined with other things they've said, they seem to have suggested that having the GM decide if there were spellbooks or not would be railroady, because it was fiction the players weren't involved with.

Leaving aside the terminological morass, the whole object of narrativist play is to address these kinds of issues like Aramina's belief about getting spellbooks. So, simply letting the GM decide by some sort of pregeneration (or on-the-fly generation) of content about these spell books is tantamount to a GM authored story! It goes something like "Aramina wants spell books, but she cannot find any in Evard's Tower, or vault X, or the Hulamic Academy Library, or..." and they're to be found only in esoteric place Z. Its just a fetch quest. Sure, it involves a player constructed belief, but how it plays out is entirely the GM's story. Yeah, the player of Aramina can give up and write a new belief.

I know its hard for people who have spent their whole lives being GMs that wrote every stitch of fiction in the game, but there's a vitality to play in which A) nobody knows what will happen, and B) players are making decisions like "maybe there are spell books in this abandoned wizard's tower."

 

[Voranzovin]

Do you ever wonder if there are forums for contractors ....

And on those forums, there are people that just argue constantly about what tool is the best tool.

Yes. They're called programmers.

To observe, try asking about object oriented vs functional programming on stack overflow. It will make anything ever seen on these boards look like a polite conversation over afternoon tea.

Does it escalate?

Yes. Yes it does.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Voranzovin

How do you use EMACS?

1. Type emacs.
2. Wait for it to load.
3. While waiting, get the work done in vi.
4. Sometime later, exit emacs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well...

I guess I'd ask for an example of how it works. The idea is the players can alter the game reality just like the GM: Ultimate Player Agency. I know you don't like the direct "alter Game Reality", and that is fine, but that is descriptive of the action.

I think @pemerton has provided a few examples of Burning Wheel play in this thread. In BitD I might propose that, during information gathering time my character looks up an old army buddy whom he's pretty sure could blow a safe. I made up the army buddy, maybe I have to talk to one of my already established contacts, grease a palm, or get into a little tussle to track this guy down. Once I find him, I'll have to pay for any info/help/equipment he gives me. OTOH I've established a new NPC relationship, and I might improve that with time. Obviously if I'm trying to invent some infinitely powerful wizard ally or something, its not going to work, but I've never seen people do that in games where they are 'co-owners' of the game, only in games where the players are treated like the underclass.

I'd point out GMs don't have levels....but maybe your talking about some homebrew?

I'm just that cool.

Again, I though I was clear. you keep mixing up Printed Game Rules and How People Play a Game. Yes, there is no game with combat rules and hit points that on page 11 says "player characters can never die as it would remove player agency". So, we are clear: no game says that.

Now....the WAY people play the games...changing, modifying or just utterly ignoring the written rules...is what I'm talking about.

Well, I cannot speak for other people, but when I play/run games I am out to have fun at the experience of playing that game. Not dorking around inventing a god mode or something. I guess now and then we alter a rule slightly because it doesn't work well, or do something that is not quite 'by the book', but its usually something like "It would be cool if my character could..." and we come up with something interesting.

Right but the game does have time based printed rules, right? And, again, the rules don't say "if your character has something effecting them, you can just rest for a 15 minute day and remove it". But you can still do that in the game.

Nope, in BitD the rules call for DTAs as the way to fix injury/stress. I mean, maybe there's a special ability or equipment somewhere that can help, but the only way to reduce stress is to get a critical and burn the bonus effect on removing one point of stress. Its good, but it isn't time-based. AFAIK nothing is really 'time based' in BitD, its all clocks, which generally tick at certain times.

Just take the "score cycle": The player just says "hey lets end the cycle and start a new one" and the GM high fives the player and says "sure".

You can abandon a score, sure. You won't get paid probably, and that sucks. Happens now and then.

 

[Xamnam]

there's a vitality to play in which A) nobody knows what will happen, and B) players are making decisions like "maybe there are spell books in this abandoned wizard's tower."

Frustratingly, having the power of B) as a player can rob me of some ability to feel A).

 

[Voranzovin]

@Voranzovin

How do you use EMACS?

1. Type emacs.
2. Wait for it to load.
3. While waiting, get the work done in vi.
4. Sometime later, exit emacs.

My business partner uses emacs in Evil Mode, so the emacs and vi people both hate him.

I use vscode, as is appropriate for anyone who isn't an ancient relic of a forgotten age.

 

[Maxperson]

Agency isn't random is the point. An outcome that happens by pure luck isn't one that involves agency.

It is if you choose to make a random choice. Back at the doors nobody forced them to pick a door. They could have chosen to go back the way they came. That's agency. Low agency, but still agency.

Right, so let's talk about that. I may not go quite as far as @pemerton but I expect I may be closer to his take than that of many others. This is why your take of "See? A shred of agency... this is now the same as pemerton's game!" isn't very useful.

Nobody has said it's the same as @pemerton's game, or at least I certainly haven't.

I think his interpretation is getting so much flak because it's easier to get upset about it than it is to actually weigh its merits.

It's not about avoidance in weighing the merits. It's about his pejorative and incorrect assessment of the entire traditional playstyle as a railroad. I would have welcomes him just saying, "Hey everyone. This is how I play and these are what I view as it's strengths and weaknesses. What do you all think?" or something along those lines. Had he done that, this thread would have been about the merits and flaws of his style, as well as possibly the merits and flaws(does not include railroading) of the traditional style.

To actually look at play and see if what he's described suits a game, and if so, what that means.

His way absolutely suits a game. A lot of people really enjoy it. Personally I don't want to exercise that much control over the game as a player, nor do I want scenes to always revolve around something important to one of the PCs. I can certainly see how a lot of people would enjoy that style of play, though. And it does give the players more control over the game.

 

[pemerton]

Separate from this talk about whether the spellbooks are there or not, I think this is clever resolution, as it doesn't turn the consequences of Thurgon's failure onto Aramina. Instead, Thurgon finds out that grandpa's an evil wizard, and Aramina can still pursue her belief in accordance with her player's desires.

Now here's an interesting thing: that GM had played RPGs for a couple of decades (with me GMing), but that session was maybe the fourth he'd ever GMed (not just 4th of BW, but 4th ever).

I think this gives the lie to the notion that GM-driven play is in some sense more intuitive or easier to grasp, either for players or GMs.

 

[Maxperson]

@Faolyn , I'm not the folks you're interacting with, but I'm going to throw a few (lol?) words at the conversation you're having. I'm also going to use the term "say" here (meaning "player's say" or "system's say" rather than "GM's say") in the stead of Railroad. Here are some examples that are either significant input into/over the trajectory of play via "say" or significant reduction of the same via lack of "say."

* Do the players have say over what this game is about? Does play chase what the players are interested, which they've signaled either directly via words or indirectly via system components (like relationships and dramatic needs) within character build? This one transcends serious. Its pretty profound in its impact. If this is not true, that is a an extremely substantial reduction in player (or system) say.

This is interesting. Suppose the players want to play a traditional style game. They want to explore the world and have it revealed to them by the DM as they go. They want to explore dungeons that they didn't help bring into being. And so on. Wouldn't getting into a game like that give them a lot of say over what the game is about since it chases what the players are interested in?

It seems to me that a traditional player in a game of @pemerton's style would have little say and it would not chase what that player is interested in, just like traditional play doesn't give Pemerton what he is interested in giving him little say in a game of that style.

* Can the players consult the accumulated wisdom of their played character via (a) putting something provisional out there about the shared imagined space that could end up being interesting and useful to their situation, (b) staking the prospect of their memories/education (etc) being erroneous and the actual truth of things complicating their lives (via GM getting to say what is actually true), and (c) putting that to the test via action resolution mechanics (of one form or another). Do players have the say to attempt to stipulate consequential things their characters know and have that impact the gamestate/trajectory of play? If this is not true, that is a reduction in player (or system) say.

Similar to the above, if the player wants to play in a traditional style game, then he is getting his say by having the PC knowledge figured out in traditional manner.

* Are the framed situations/obstacles put before the players engaging, impactful, trajectory-of-play-dictating such that players have substantial say over the game's fiction and game's state when engaging with and resolving them? Are their decisions meaty, consequential, thematically compelling, tactically/strategically engaging (decisions to chart this course vs that course or to deal with this potential suite of complication vs that potential suite of complications or to choose this complication over that complication when things go awry...or to skillfully choose and put into effect this particularly impactful line of play vs these other impacful lines of play)? If there is a reduction in any of these things above, or an arbitrariness, or a signposting/signaling of consequential decision-points that are actually just feigned/falsely signaled?

Same as above.

So, reduction in say (player or system or both) isn't any one thing. And certain types of reduction in say are more impactful than others (and some of that will be game-contextual). But a thousand raindrops make a puddle, as the saying goes, and as that drip, drip, drip accrues, the reduction in say can drown out the player's consequential impact into the content of and trajectory of play...and there is absolutely a point of muted player input where you're effectively a bystander.

It seems to me that it really is one thing, Playstyle preference. If you are playing a game that runs the style of your preference, you have a lot of say. If you are playing a game that is of the other playstyle, then you don't have a lot of say.

 

[pemerton]

Sure, but is there any RPG in which the GM doesn’t play a large role in creating setting-material? (Note: large role in this context doesn’t mean exclusive role).

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a RPG which (i) has a GM but (ii) does not have the GM playing large role in creating setting/background material. I think Vincent Baker is right that the GM's central function is to "orchestrate conflict", and that requires brining "pieces" onto the "board" - in a RPG that means making up setting elements and framing the PCs into scenes where those setting elements generate adversity.