Is the Burning Wheel "how to play" advice useful for D&D?

[Lord Mhoram]

[MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION]
Ron Edwards gets this pretty right, I think, here:

Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract. . .

a character in Narrativist play is by definition a thematic time-bomb​

6

I'd pretty much made this decision already, but thanks for reinforcing my decision to never play a narritivist game - assuming this is a pretty good description of it. On a similar note - when Paladins have been mentioned in the tread the assumption is that someone wants to play one to test their faith. Not always - I play a paladin who had their faith tested and was done with that before play started - that is the reason for playing a Paladin. Someone who knows right from wrong so strongly that they get magical powers because of that devotion. The reason to choose the class is to avoid the shades of grey stuff that can come up.

As for the general discussion - I'm going to throw in another idea - Immersionism. When playing any time I change the world, story, direction of narrative but do so outside the actions of the character (such as using a fate point, drama point, or even hero points as they show up in some D&D games) completely pulls me out of character and into metagame mode. The purpose of roleplaying for me is to become my character in play as close as possible - and any mechanic that affects that gets between become said character and me. Mechanical concerns such as hit bonus or skill bonus don't because there is an in character knowledge of skill - the character knows if they are good at lockpicking or such. Rolling the die is me making an action that is a 1 to 1 equivalent to the character picking the lock.

I know my playstyle is not all that common - but when narrative or personality mechanics come into play they destroy, by their very nature, the purpose of any roleplaying game.

I mostly talk about my tastes rather than in generalities for example, but when discussion reasons and modes of play that aspect is almost never brought up; and can have an incredible impact on game style, and game choice. I prefer D&D and Hero (even with disads, but they are, as Ron mention, to define the character) because they don't have rules for the kind of thing being discussed.

 

[Celebrim]

I know some will disagree with me that the rules of the game extend beyond task resolution, but I say bunk. The role and responsibilities of GMs and players at table, the goals of play, player priorities, and other "metagame" priorities are as much a part of the game rules as Power Attack. When a game is silent on these issues it just means it expects player groups to establish that element itself.

I whole-heartedly agree with you except that I think it is a mistake to speak of all this entourage that goes with a game as being its 'rules'. Rather, the rules are just one aspect of this larger concept of things that an RPG brings with it that becomes play. I'm not sure what the best word for this ecosystem that the game lives in, but it's something I've been acutely aware of for a while now.

Indeed, I would argue that many of the things in the larger environment of the game are more important than the formal rules of the game, or, "How you prepare to play a system and how you think about playing a system is more important than the system."

 

[Manbearcat]

Blarg. There is something wrong with the boards. New posts are triggered but my thread doesn't get updated until I either get notified, mentioned or post something new.

Ignore this gratuitous post that updates the thread for me.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Blarg. There is something wrong with the boards. New posts are triggered but my thread doesn't get updated until I either get notified, mentioned or post something new.

Ignore this gratuitous post that updates the thread for me.

I am also experiencing these issues. Been going on for several days at least, on and off. Annoying!

 

[innerdude]

I whole-heartedly agree with you except that I think it is a mistake to speak of all this entourage that goes with a game as being its 'rules'. Rather, the rules are just one aspect of this larger concept of things that an RPG brings with it that becomes play. I'm not sure what the best word for this ecosystem that the game lives in, but it's something I've been acutely aware of for a while now.

Indeed, I would argue that many of the things in the larger environment of the game are more important than the formal rules of the game, or, "How you prepare to play a system and how you think about playing a system is more important than the system."

Can't XP you, Celebrim, but this is a great post, even though I might quibble a tiny bit with the last sentence. Only because I think most of us choose a system because we already know in our heads how we're going to prepare to play said system, and how we're thinking about how it will be played.

For example, the GM in my GURPS group specifically chooses that system BECAUSE to him it's utterly, totally, ruthlessly realistic. He's not into "plot protection" for the characters at all. He's not into "metagame mechanics." He's pretty up front about the notion that "If you do something stupid, I will not hesitate to kill you."

As a result, he likewise expects his players to just as ruthlessly power game. Eke out every possible bonus, conditional modifier, battle tactic, and money spent on magic items as humanly possible. Because if you're not, you're not "doing your job" as a player, because he's certainly not going to "hold back" when running opposition.

Those expectations are just "there," part and parcel with the type of group he likes to run. Are there other ways that GURPS could be run? I'm sure there are, but his approach just takes GURPS down its most direct, straight-line logical conclusion ("You want gritty? Here you go").

(As a side note, personally I think he's actually playing a zero-sum game . . . because as GM, he has total control over encounters. If you make the opponents as "realistic" as the "real world," then 99% of everyone is a pretty ordinary, and the PCs are extraordinary. In most cases, a GURPS encounter between "optimized" PCs and just about everyone except the most exceptional of foes should end in a PC victory with minimal resources expended or risked. But this is mostly neither here nor there.)

But this does bring up an interesting point---is it the developer's job to assume that the rules they create are, in fact, largely going to be played down their most direct, straight-line logical conclusion?

For example, even supporters of 4e like Manbearcat have admitted in other posts that playing 4e by its at-launch, direct, straight-line, "logically conclusive" playstyle leads to a somewhat muddled play experience. For me, without hearing pemerton's experiences of "drifting" 4e to a more narrativist bent, and then using the mechanical underpinnings to "push" characters into "thematic roles," I don't know that I'd ever have figured that was even a valid approach.

This is also particularly applicable for 5e at the moment, because I suspect part of the problem we're having, is that no one knows how to prepare for or "play" the system, because we don't know what we're going to get. The playtest packets have been so all over the map that everyone's just sort of scratching their heads going, "What am I supposed to be doing with this? What kind of game is this going to end up as?"

Deep down we WANT to know what the baseline assumptions are, because we want to be making determinations RIGHT NOW whether the whole exercise is going to be worth our time. I'm just not sure, given the obvious and required "reading between the lines" for 4e's optimal playstyle, that Mearls is particularly effective at articulating or making these kinds of "playstyle aims" transparent.

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to throw in another idea - Immersionism. When playing any time I change the world, story, direction of narrative but do so outside the actions of the character (such as using a fate point, drama point, or even hero points as they show up in some D&D games) completely pulls me out of character and into metagame mode.

<snip>

when narrative or personality mechanics come into play they destroy, by their very nature, the purpose of any roleplaying game.

My own view is that you can run a game along the lines suggested by Luke Crane without narrative or pesrsonality mechanics - at The Forge they call this "vanilla narrativism". That's not to say that you, Lord Mhoram, would like such a game - just to point out that there is no particular mechanical requirement for running a narrativist game. (Though some mechanics might fit better or worse.)

Similarly, someone could play hardcore Gygaxian-style D&D even without using the "gp for XP" rules (@Lanefan who posts on these boards is an example of this, I believe).

As a side note, personally I think he's actually playing a zero-sum game . . . because as GM, he has total control over encounters. If you make the opponents as "realistic" as the "real world," then 99% of everyone is a pretty ordinary, and the PCs are extraordinary. In most cases, a GURPS encounter between "optimized" PCs and just about everyone except the most exceptional of foes should end in a PC victory with minimal resources expended or risked. But this is mostly neither here nor there.

Though it does raise some interesting questions about the role of GM force in this particular game. Classic D&D uses it systems of monster level, dungeon level, wandering monster checks etc to try to mediate GM force in encounter design so as to ensure that the players aren't just dancing to the GM's tune. I don't know what, if any, analogues GURPS has to these techniques.

 

[innerdude]

Though it does raise some interesting questions about the role of GM force in this particular game. Classic D&D uses it systems of monster level, dungeon level, wandering monster checks etc to try to mediate GM force in encounter design so as to ensure that the players aren't just dancing to the GM's tune. I don't know what, if any, analogues GURPS has to these techniques.

Hmm, that's really interesting. I don't know if I'd ever thought of "classic" D&D as having those mediating forces in place. In this area, class "levels" are the same kind of thing; as a player you know you're "Level 4," and thus capable of rising up to meet certain challenges. In GURPS, there's no indication, on the surface, how the GM is going to present any given encounter. You simply don't have those obvious clues. (Wow, my mind is really spinning on this, pemerton. You may have highlighted something that may be a cause for my general dislike of GURPS.)

I'm no GURPS expert, but I'm slowly becoming familiar with it as our group plays. I think the only "mediating" force in GURPS is (as you'd expect from a hardcore simulationist game) is the GM's ability to effectively convey scene information. Meaning, the GM has to take a RIGOROUS approach to giving the party as much "good information" as absolutely possible, because that's the only way players can make intelligent decisions within a process / simulation environment.

Savage Worlds is somewhat this way too, but not nearly to the extent as GURPS, since there's stuff like bennies for plot protection and player protagonism, "interlude" rules for setting up character backgrounds with bennies as rewards, etc. As a result, players aren't expected to expend nearly as much effort analyzing the "real world" costs of taking a particular course of action, because they know they have at least one or two tricks up their sleeve if they get in trouble. GURPS presents zero kind of buffer for this, at least in RAW.

 

[Campbell]

I whole-heartedly agree with you except that I think it is a mistake to speak of all this entourage that goes with a game as being its 'rules'. Rather, the rules are just one aspect of this larger concept of things that an RPG brings with it that becomes play. I'm not sure what the best word for this ecosystem that the game lives in, but it's something I've been acutely aware of for a while now.

Indeed, I would argue that many of the things in the larger environment of the game are more important than the formal rules of the game, or, "How you prepare to play a system and how you think about playing a system is more important than the system."

I just don't think it's entirely clear cut where system ends and social contract begins. For some games the social contract is in fact part of the written rules, especially when the application written and unwritten rules can vary so much from table to table. Different games definitely have certain play style dependencies.

Burning Wheel for instance does not function well within the constraints of heavy prep, or process oriented application of skills. Of course it adamantly tells you so. If you don't 'Let it Ride' and only roll dice when conflict occurs the mechanical force of its advancement system loses it cache and along with it the tension between going it alone or receiving help. Without a no-myth approach wises and circles become less critical. The absence of no-myth also causes a GM to have more difficulty with failing forward which leads to failure having more mechanical force than intended.

While D&D 3e doesn't enshrine elements of the social contract as strongly it has dependencies that do not function well under a no-myth structure. Even with a monster manual or stat blocks handy using 3e's mechanical elements requires a strong understanding of disparate rules elements. Additionally using PC build selection as a flag suffers because when you break from the assumed roles or adventuring model there are direct setting consequences not necessarily seen in more narrative systems. I actually think this is why my 3e experience suffered in comparison to others. We tended to play with more supernaturally inclined PCs for thematic reasons and with 2 or more clerics sharing the healing load play broke down for us. It was still fun - just not what we were looking for.

From my experience in play so far L5R 4e seems more flexible. It has strong thematic lists to choose from, but the actual mechanical weight of clan, family, and school in play is relatively minor compared to class and race in any version of D&D.

It also has strong diminishing returns in both skill and ability selection which discourages extreme specialization. As a bushi your choice is what else other than fighting will I be good at. This allows players to plant flags that have a strong weight that is also tied into strong simulation. Characters are not that mechanically detailed so improvisation seems like it would be pretty easy. Even its "meta game" resource void points have an in-setting justification.

Of course these features which make it strong for both narrative and simulation oriented play also make it fairly weak for Step On Up play unless a GM takes extensive effort. Additionally some more simulation-oriented players may feel that Honor being a thing with mechanical weight feels awkward, even if it's directly tied to the system's cosmology.

I've also experienced some tension in play because some of our more simulation-oriented players seem to want to play every day out when I'm more inclined to describe my character's actions in broad blush with intent spelled out. Our GM seems to do a good job of balancing out our play style differences though. I've experienced similar player dissonance in 4e as a player and GM, though on a different bent. I've not experienced it in Burning Wheel though, largely because the gamist component is directly tied to creating narrative in play.

 

[pemerton]

ow, my mind is really spinning on this, pemerton. You may have highlighted something that may be a cause for my general dislike of GURPS.

Always happy to oblige!

This sort of issue was one of my reasons for growingly increasingly dissatisfied with Rolemaster over 19 years of GMing it: it can be very hard to set up situations and present them to the players in a way that gives them the space and capacity to make the meaningful decisions. (Though RM has a few more cues than GURPS, including a rough-and-ready level system.)

 

[Libramarian]

My impression of at least one way of playing D&D - that dates back at least to the latter period of 1st ed AD&D - is that the adventure is seeded by some sort of quest that speaks to the players in very generic terms (eg they're playing LG and NG PCs, and the cleric of Pelor asks for help), and then it rolls along in a fashion more-or-less indifferent to both the players and the quest goal until you get to the end, at which point you find the princess, or the prisoners, or the ancient relic, or whatever else it was that the mentor/patron NPC wanted.

I hate that sort of adventure. I don't want to run it as a GM. I don't want to play it as a player.

Yes! This is what I'm talking about. That type of adventure is powerfully lame. Fairly or unfairly, this is what I felt the 4e books were presenting as the game's default adventure paradigm. The stuff about player-created quests points to something more interesting but it felt like an inconsequential toss-in idea to me. I personally would need more advice and structure to know what to do with that.

Ron Edwards had this description of the classic D&D PC (put forward in a discussion of fantasy heartbreakers), as well as some views about play problems that can come up - I know that some people find it pejorative, but I'm curious about what you think:

Haha, I don't think that's pejorative, I think that's right on the money, for the most part. I can totally see why he would say it's a serious problem for fantasy RPG design in the context of fantasy heartbreakers at the time of his writing. My hope would be that today there are enough alternative fantasy role-playing models and games that people can take another look at classic D&D and appreciate it for what it is, rather than backlash against it because they keep getting frustrated trying to push it out of its natural zone.

I think the poster child of D&D heartbreakers would be early Runequest eh? Especially playing in Glorantha where you have this enormously complex mythologically resonant setting and the play experience is still basically dungeon-crawling for treasure. I'm thinking of picking up the reprint of Griffin Mountain to run with the Legend rules, because I've heard people describe it as the greatest sandbox setting of all time--I think I'd be going into it with the right attitude: this is basically going to be classic D&D with more limbs chopped off and a weirder/more interesting setting.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I'm guessing from that you may not agree with the diagnosis of "a recipe for Social Contract breakdown". And I also think this might be linked to your board game idea, which presumably is all about downplaying the players imaginiative experience of the character in favour of the imaginative experience of the setting as narrated by the GM.

No, I don't see how it courts social contract breakdown any moreso than any other game experience that's pretty focused GNS-wise. I thought Edwards mentioned it as an example of coherent gamist play in the essay on that subject. But yeah, generally my advice to prevent that from happening would be to downplay a player's attachment to their particular character concept and play up the idea of exploring a weird fantasy world. Character generation is less about "who do you want to be?" and more about "what toolkit of abilities do you want to take with you?". It's like the old D&D cartoon where the players are literally teleported into the game world. You're almost just playing yourself. That seems to be sufficient to get everyone on the same page without taking all of the tension out of the game by overcompensating and being ironic and jokey with it. It's not necessary to name your male elf Melf or their fourth character Wilson IV or stuff like that. I read a description in this amusing thread of Basic D&D being like a boardgame that's allowed to run off the rails, and I thought that was really apt.

I'm not the biggest fan of the sort of the sort of low-stakes high concept sim play that you're calling out as the default for 4e. And because I'm not the biggest fan maybe I'm not well placed to talk about good or bad systems for it - but I'll have a go anyway, and suggest that 4e is pretty heavy mechancially for that sort of game, and puts a lot of mechanical responsibility on the player - just like BW says the player is responsible for invoking the mechanics, so 4e relies on the player to put powers to work, invoke p 42 etc. What is the point of that mechanical responsibility without the stakes to match it? Drifting in a slightly higher-stakes direction seems to fit better with the mechanical dimensions of 4e play (and the absence of such drift, and the expection of a low-responsibility GM-driven game, might help explain the "plays like a boardgame" experience).

I think it's likely you are right about the last part there.

I know some will disagree with me that the rules of the game extend beyond task resolution, but I say bunk. The role and responsibilities of GMs and players at table, the goals of play, player priorities, and other "metagame" priorities are as much a part of the game rules as Power Attack. When a game is silent on these issues it just means it expects player groups to establish that element itself.

I agree. I think maybe some people are so used to irrelevant and unfocused advice text in games that they just tune it out now, like advertising.

pemerton has observed that the foreword in Moldvay's Basic D&D is weirdly dissonant with how the game actually plays. This is true, but I didn't even notice that -- I think my brain almost immediately recognized it as pointless fluff and ignored it. I notice when this sort of thing is remarkably relevant and appropriate, e.g. the intro and Successful Adventures section in 1e PHB, but not when it's useless.