D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

I can't answer your questions. I literally looked at Burning Wheel rules for the first time less than three hours ago.

I get that, but isn’t that kind of answer paramount for discerning the degree of implausibility required in burning wheel circles checks for the invocation of the mechanic to be invalid?

Doesn't the transparency thing put the kibosh to it though? You can't pretend you want something you don't. You can't hide what you're looking for. The GM isn't being gamed because they literally KNOW what you're doing, and if you're "shopping around" for lower-difficulty stuff, they can see that. Kinda hard to exploit someone if they literally know what you're doing because it's completely public.

If the GM can’t do anything with that knowledge, either due to mechanics or principles, wouldn’t that change things?

 

[pointofyou]

I would leave off the 'at random'.

There's a few key differences here.

And the poster I was responding has apparently edited the post in an attempt to make the connections less obvious. The original phrasing was "makes a request." Which makes all of this

1. The player didn't declare 'I hit the Orc'. He declared 'I attack the Orc'. The player in his own word choices exhibits a clear understanding that he doesn't declare whether he hits the orc regardless of his desire. Instead he invokes 'attack' - a mechanic that specifically gives him a chance of hitting the orc.

2. The player really desires to have rolled for max damage, or better yet that his blow kill the Orc. In D&D the player isn't declaring declaring any thing he wants. In D&D the player declaring 'attack' is invoking a mechanic to get a specific and defined mechanical effect he desires. Circles is a defined mechanic - but it's not specific - the player can invoke the circles mechanic for just about anything so long as a very low plausibility bar is cleared.

3. The d&d ‘attack’ incorporates the plausibility of your PC hitting into its framework (attacks vs AC). The circles mechanic does not factor plausibility into its resolution framework at all as far as I can tell?

"difference" really not applicable. The point was that just as D&D has rules for killing orcs Burning Wheel has rules for finding people. My understanding is that in setting the Obstacle for a Circles check the GM is both considering the plausibility and making a statement about it.

I agree plausibility is technically required for circles - but in many of the examples I see for Circles - plausibility is such a minimum constraint that it might as well be non-existent.

I've only read Burning Wheel not played it but if I remember right there's a strong presumption that the Circles check is about something important to the character and the GMs' principles include that they should direct play at things important to the characters.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I don't have time right now to get too much into detail (have to get ready for work), but y'all might find the BW: Hub and Spokes useful, which is a free PDF that includes the first 74 pages of the book and the base rules. They're from Burning Wheel Gold rather than Burning Wheel Gold Revised, so there may be subtle differences between this and the current edition, but there's no change in philosophy.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson
This link looked like it had some juice for better explaining just where a GM could be played in burning wheel circles mechanics.

Most notably - player can shop around till he gets better than normal chances, since players don’t have to commit till they know the odds and what the consequence will be.

All you need to know is that the DM has discretion and therefore can be played, but that link to the Circles subsystem is pretty cool. The portions dealing with what knowledge the NPC has and the Time and Place portions can easily be played if you know the DM. If the DM is partial to making knowledge checks easier when posed in a certain way, framing the knowledge known in that way is playing the DM. Same with the Time and Place portion. You can frame it in a way that you know will seem less critical to the DM and get a lower rating.

 

[SteveC]

If I could interject for a moment on Burning Wheel. If you haven't read it, go and do so. It is one of the books that I recommend to people when they ask me about RPGs to read and think about. I have had people tell me they hated it and loved it, but never "that was pretty meh, I didn't get anything out of it." If anything, it is a great presentation of that playstyle. And while it is very different from D&D, I think there are some things that you can port into a D&D game that make it a better game of D&D. Framing the task is one of them, as is discussing consequences before a roll.

You can get the game (legally) as a PDF (this is a thing where the author didn't make it available legally until recently) so I recommend it.

 

[FrogReaver]

And the poster I was responding has apparently edited the post in an attempt to make the connections less obvious. The original phrasing was "makes a request." Which makes all of this

I think you were far to quick to dismiss 2).

So maybe you can elaborate on how this makes 2) not applicable instead of just declaring it to be so.

I've only read Burning Wheel not played it but if I remember right there's a strong presumption that the Circles check is about something important to the character and the GMs' principles include that they should direct play at things important to the characters.

Agreed. Though how directly they should relate seems to be up in the air?

 

[pointofyou]

I think you were far to quick to dismiss 2).

So maybe you can elaborate on how this makes 2) not applicable instead of just declaring it to be so.


Agreed. Though how directly they should relate seems to be up in the air?

How was I quick to dismiss anything that didn't deserve to be dismissed quickly? The attack and damage rolls attacking the orc are engaging with the mechanics and following the rules of D&D. The player doesn't just get to declare max damage or anything like that. The player making a Circles check is engaging with the mechanics and following the rules of Burning Wheel. The player doesn't get to just make declarations about the person so located. Any interaction is likely to involve some sort of a check. There is no applicable difference because both players are playing the game they're playing as it is written and intended to be played.

 

[FrogReaver]

How was I quick to dismiss anything that didn't deserve to be dismissed quickly?

Really?

 

[pointofyou]

Really?

Yup.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

All you need to know is that the DM has discretion and therefore can be played, but that link to the Circles subsystem is pretty cool. The portions dealing with what knowledge the NPC has and the Time and Place portions can easily be played if you know the DM. If the DM is partial to making knowledge checks easier when posed in a certain way, framing the knowledge known in that way is playing the DM. Same with the Time and Place portion. You can frame it in a way that you know will seem less critical to the DM and get a lower rating.

But the GM literally will know what you're doing because you have to tell them your intent and how you intend to make it happen...

How can you game someone by telling them specifically what you want and proposing (not simply declaring) an approach to make that happen?

I genuinely don't understand how it is possible to "game" someone when you're not only playing with your cards face-up, you're literally giving a specific explanation of your strategy.