You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[chaochou]

Likewise, whether something is really at stake is also subjective (and not surprisingly entirely up to the GMs judgment, see the pattern)....

So when I ask a player or players 'Guys, what's at stake here?' am I saying I want the scene to happen or don't want it to happen? Am I saying something is at stake or isn't at stake?

According to you it must be one or the other. After all, it's entirely up to me, right? So which is it?

Of course the answer is: Neither. The players decide. Which exposes the falseness of your starting premise - assuming a GM with complete authority used in a dictatorial manner. You simply don't consider that in increasing the authority of the players or the group the role of the GM has to change.

The one time you come close, you suddenly duck out. What if the player says a scene matters and the GM says it doesn't. But this prompts uncomfortable questions. What is the role of the GM in this situation? Why would the GM say that? Why does the GM need an opinion?

Your answer - it doesn't matter, well maybe it does but let's ignore it. Players having the authority to say what matters in the game doesn't fit your paradigm. And yet, that's what Beliefs do. They give the players the means to say what matters, now, here, this session, and nothing in BW says the GM can say otherwise.

Starting from a false premise, over and over, is the reason you struggle with BW. Until you break out of that paradigm you're going to be stuck writing these hollow 'theoretical' critiques of a game you don't understand. Apologies if that comes across as blunt.

As JC would say, play what you like.

 

[Nagol]

So when I ask a player or players 'Guys, what's at stake here?' am I saying I want the scene to happen or don't want it to happen? Am I saying something is at stake or isn't at stake?

According to you it must be one or the other. After all, it's entirely up to me, right? So which is it?

Of course the answer is: Neither. The players decide. Which exposes the falseness of your starting premise - assuming a GM with complete authority used in a dictatorial manner. You simply don't consider that in increasing the authority of the players or the group the role of the GM has to change.

The one time you come close, you suddenly duck out. What if the player says a scene matters and the GM says it doesn't. But this prompts uncomfortable questions. What is the role of the GM in this situation? Why would the GM say that? Why does the GM need an opinion?

Your answer - it doesn't matter, well maybe it does but let's ignore it. Players having the authority to say what matters in the game doesn't fit your paradigm. And yet, that's what Beliefs do. They give the players the means to say what matters, now, here, this session, and nothing in BW says the GM can say otherwise.

Starting from a false premise, over and over, is the reason you struggle with BW. Until you break out of that paradigm you're going to be stuck writing these hollow 'theoretical' critiques of a game you don't understand. Apologies if that comes across as blunt.

As JC would say, play what you like.

Becasue Celebrim was following the logic presented by Luke in his critique:

The Say Yes rule is difficult to adjudicate, yet it's one of the most vital elements of the system. It grants the GM authorial power to cut right to the important stuff and skip the extraneous or tiresome action

Nowhere is there a mention of player authorial power -- a point Celebrim takes pains to call out. From what I can tell, beliefs aren't a form of authorial power -- they are levers the player can use for resolution and hooks the GM can attach the character to the world.

A more clear form of player authorial power are Declarations in FATE games -- where the player can modify the world or its occupants in heretofore undisclosed/unanticipated manners almost at a whim.

 

[Celebrim]

So when I ask a player or players 'Guys, what's at stake here?' am I saying I want the scene to happen or don't want it to happen? Am I saying something is at stake or isn't at stake?

So, for the example of the Windy Ledge, did Luke ask, "Guys, what's at stake here?" Was it implied that the players created the "Windy Ledge" challenge, the DM asked them what the stakes where, and then they played it out? Because that is a valid way to play a game, but it's not the impression I'm getting from the discussion.

The players decide.

Again, did the players invent the 'Windy Ledge' scene? Did the players set the stakes of being suffering loss or forgoing resources? If the answer is 'no, then the players certainly didn't decide.

Which exposes the falseness of your starting premise - assuming a GM with complete authority used in a dictatorial manner. You simply don't consider that in increasing the authority of the players or the group the role of the GM has to change.

Not only is it false that 'the players decide', as all the examples show clearly, but this entire assumption is false. Moreover, it is my position that this heavy handed scene frame is more dictatorial than what I'm suggesting, and not less, and that it decreases the authority of the players rather than increases it.

What if the player says a scene matters and the GM says it doesn't. But this prompts uncomfortable questions. What is the role of the GM in this situation? Why would the GM say that? Why does the GM need an opinion?

If the GM is responcible for the scene framing, and for introducing the challenges, then the GM has an opinion. Is the resolution to this problem, the player says, "I don't like this scene, may I have another?" That's possible, but I'll not that that treads into the sort of simplistic conch passing that pemerton keeps warning us against.

Players having the authority to say what matters in the game doesn't fit your paradigm.

Funny how you think I'm the one that doesn't understand the stakes here.

And yet, that's what Beliefs do. They give the players the means to say what matters, now, here, this session, and nothing in BW says the GM can say otherwise.

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. I know what Beliefs are supposed to do. But the more examples I'm seeing of beliefs in play the less I believe they accomplish that. And again, I want to point out that in Luke's own discusion of whether the Windy Ledge was important, he didn't mention Beliefs at all. Moreover, if the GM can decide that the Windy Ledge is important, then indeed he does get 'an opinion' as to whether a scene matters to the player's beliefs.

Starting from a false premise, over and over, is the reason you struggle to frame any sort of meaningful responce to my critique. Why don't you start from the assumption that I'm not a 'dictatorial' capracious cruel tyrant that desires only to abuse and crush my players. Until you break out of that paradigm you're going to be stuck writing these hollow 'theoretical' critiques of a game you don't understand. Apologies if that comes across as blunt.

 

[Umbran]

Guys, you're starting to get snippy and snide again. Please stop. There's nothing in this discussion so important that it justifies treating each other poorly.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

@Manbearcat

I'm still struggling with why the desert shouldn't be framed as an action sene when it was

1. a scene deliberately sought out by the players (they used an ability with this destination as a possible random result without mitigation prepared to continue the transition),
2. the group did not deploy resources to transition (summoning a centipede engages the scene and presents assets/aspects for the group to use whilst in it -- it is not the equivalent of teleport or other forms for fast non-interceptable travel),
3. the game engine includes such forms of action in the basic ruleset (defined skills such as Ride (Exotic mount), wilderness encounters, weather, other hazards),
4. the area being traversed is unknown and novel to the PCs.

1: Keep in mind that players can and do screw up with regards to preparations, among other things. They did not deliberately want to interact with the desert partly because they likely didn't know it existed in the first place, and they couldn't have known it would drop them there until it happened. How much should one "punish" the players for not making preparations for something? Making them slog through the desert when they seem to be more interested in something else isn't something I'd personally do because I'd run the risk of boring them when they're focused on the city. Chances are dealing with the city will engage them far more, so that's where I'm going to set up things that are meant to be engaging. So how might one skip the desert while still letting the players know that they need to prepare for such things if they want to skip it? One way might be telling them "Well, you didn't quite prepare enough for this, but since you definitely don't like the desert I can take the cost of a scroll of X from your total party gold and then you can use it to bypass the desert. Be prepared for stuff like this next time, because I will make you play through it."

Would I personally do that? Depends on who I'm running the game for. My main preference is keeping the players having fun, and since I recognize the players are going to be different, I'd do it different depending on the players.

2: Again, players don't always have the preparations or abilities needed to bypass something. That doesn't mean it's necessary to force them to play it if there is obviously something they would be more engaged in. What does need to happen is the players need to be more specific about why they're doing something because their actions can be misconstrued. And the DM needs to be sure of what the players really want to do otherwise things can fall apart. Just because you think the player summoning the centipede means the player wants to engage does not change the fact that the player actually didn't want to engage but didn't see any other way of making it "believable."

3: The game includes myriad forms of action. Everything potentially could be interesting to someone, but we all know there are things we just don't care about.

4: It's an unknown area that isn't the current focus in the way of a better known (but still relatively unknown) area that is the current focus. Some players will want to explore and milk the unknown area for what it's worth, and others will want to make the unknown area be as easy as possible so they can get to their focus. And of course those aren't the only two options since someone could just stick to the easiest path from A to B and get what they could out of that part of the desert, but there's no denying there is diversity in how players would want to interact with it. How the players perceive it is going to shape how it's done.

So why shouldn't the desert be framed as an action sequence? Because at least one player, if asked his real opinion, would vehemently object to slogging through it. Is it worth the player being shirty and perhaps even leaving when said player can also bring a lot to other aspects of the game? Is it worth dividing the players in that portion to get to something else that the players can be united in their efforts? To @Hussar and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], and to me, no. Is it worth letting the almost certainly sucky scene (because of player involvement, or rather lack thereof. Nothing to do with what's actually in it) be handwaved to get to a scene that is going to at the very least feel better to the players in general because of their interest and involvement? Yes.

 

[Umbran]

How much should one "punish" the players for not making preparations for something?

Well, here's the thing - how much of this is a matter of point of view?

If you, as a player, are really hung up on, "But I wanted to go to the city!" then yeah, it's a slogging punishment. If, instead, you take the desert as a challenge - "Hm, how do I cope when I'm not fully prepared for this set of circumstances?" - it becomes a different scenario altogether.

How much is the GM responsible for feeding the players exactly what they wish for, and how much is the player responsible for finding their own fun in what's presented?

 

[Nagol]

1:

<snip>

So why shouldn't the desert be framed as an action sequence? Because at least one player, if asked his real opinion, would vehemently object to slogging through it. Is it worth the player being shirty and perhaps even leaving when said player can also bring a lot to other aspects of the game? Is it worth dividing the players in that portion to get to something else that the players can be united in their efforts? To @Hussar and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], and to me, no. Is it worth letting the almost certainly sucky scene (because of player involvement, or rather lack thereof. Nothing to do with what's actually in it) be handwaved to get to a scene that is going to at the very least feel better to the players in general because of their interest and involvement? Yes.

So why shouldn't that one player take the responsibility and prepare to transition/mitigate scenes he doesn't want to suffer through either through in-game resources or meta-resources?

Remember, the players ended up where they were because they took affirmative action. "We go here as our next step. Ah Jeez, I hate it here! Can't we just be there? I'll use an slightly appropiate ability to help! Are we there yet? Why not? What do you mean there are other things potentially where we are? I don't want the other things."

Heck, I've been ignoring that the group probably can't even find the city without further exploration/interaction with the setting. They are 200 miles away in a random direction. Which direction do they travel to get to the city? On Earth (which they aren't) , they'd have to be 30,000 feet in the air before the horizon was far enough away to have a chance to see it! And the air (on Earth) probably woudn't be clear enough to see fine details like a city at that distance.

I'm not suggesting the group be forced into a massive hex-crawl exploration, but cutting to different action scenes of things discovered in the desert (or that discover the PCs) seems much more approprate than jumping from the landing to the eventual destination without the expenditure of resources or basic planning when the basic game comes with rulesets to cover such travel, toolsets to help avoid it, and the PCs don't care enough to arrange anything for the predictable 200+ mile journey that lies ahead.

At this point, the the GM has "authorial control" in any of the game systems mentioned in the thread -- even Burning Wheel. That means if the GM thinks a montage of action/information collection/resource granting scenes are in order then that's what should happen. The players abdicated their ability to shortcut when they arrived without the ability to shortcut.

 

[Nagol]

Well, here's the thing - how much of this is a matter of point of view?

If you, as a player, are really hung up on, "But I wanted to go to the city!" then yeah, it's a slogging punishment. If, instead, you take the desert as a challenge - "Hm, how do I cope when I'm not fully prepared for this set of circumstances?" - it becomes a different scenario altogether.

How much is the GM responsible for feeding the players exactly what they wish for, and how much is the player responsible for finding their own fun in what's presented?

To add to this, how responsible are the players for presenting a course of action that leads to what they want?

"We want to get to the city. We plane shift. Are we there yet?"

vs.

"We want to get to the city. We plane shift. Hold on guys! That'll get us to the plane, but how are we getting to the city?"

 

[sheadunne]

Well, here's the thing - how much of this is a matter of point of view?

If you, as a player, are really hung up on, "But I wanted to go to the city!" then yeah, it's a slogging punishment. If, instead, you take the desert as a challenge - "Hm, how do I cope when I'm not fully prepared for this set of circumstances?" - it becomes a different scenario altogether.

How much is the GM responsible for feeding the players exactly what they wish for, and how much is the player responsible for finding their own fun in what's presented?

Another question is, should the DM hand-wave punishments designed to prevent use of the spell in the first place (plane shift, teleport, etc)? Those punishments are built into the game system (and few remain from the 1e and 2e era into 3e). Shouldn't the hand-waving be done before the spell is used and not on the effects of the spell? If my players (and probably myself) don't want to arrive 100 miles in the desert away from the goal, then shouldn't edit the spell, not hand-wave the effect? It's worse when a particular game requires the players teleport or plane shift to even begin the game and then leave it up to random chance whether they arrive closer or further from the destination. I don't know.

 

[Umbran]

To add to this, how responsible are the players for presenting a course of action that leads to what they want?

Another question is, should the DM hand-wave punishments designed to prevent use of the spell in the first place (plane shift, teleport, etc)? Those punishments are built into the game system (and few remain from the 1e and 2e era into 3e).

Well, these two go together interestingly. Sometimes, the players *can't* offer up a solution that gets them exactly what they want, as they don't posses the resources for it.

Then we look at the courses that are open to them, and we have to check and see if perhaps there's a good reason the "punishment" is in place. Maybe it isn't a punishment, but is instead a control of some sort?

For example, in the D&D tradition, there's a running theme that traveling the planes is *not* just like going to the corner drugstore. It is supposed to be difficult, and is supposed to typically force you to interact with the plane - the spell's limitation enforces some of the exploration elements inherent in the original games. There's also the question of whether allowing the spell to act exactly as the players want sets up some precedent that will cause balance issues later on. We note, for example, that scry also has issues in looking across planar boundaries. And this limitation means that inter-planar scry-buff-planeshift tactics aren't possible.