A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

You're not directing this at me, but I have a couple questions about BW, if you don't mind. If you don't want to further side-side-sidetrack this thread, we could do it in DMs. It's not exactly mechanical, just questions about expectations, which I don't remember seeing answered specifically in the starter rules.

Start a BW thread!

prabe, if you start a new thread you should "@" me. And mabye also "@" zaroionfarabel.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't agree with this. Game mechanics are abstract rules. They can't self-actualise. In a game, it is the participants who control the play of the game - perhaps by following the rules.

Players control the outcome in Snakes and Ladders?

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps true in most technical sense. Completely ignoring the roleplay implications of the beliefs would seem to go strongly against the intended spirit though, it specifically says they're meant to be a source of drama.

Upthread Frogreaver posted this:

Here's another example (which @AbdulAlhazred already posted 20 or 30 pages upthread):

The GM narrates you come to a dead end.

Now I can't describe the following action for my character (assuming that I'm not ethereal or similar): I keep walking straight ahead.

Thus the GM's description is a limit on "baseline" agency.

And this sort of thing happens in D&D all the time.

The bigger point is this: "baseline" agency is constrained by the fictional position of the PC; and that fictional position contains both internal and external elements.

I most certainly can narrate my character walking straight ahead at a dead end.

I may take some damage. Or maybe I’ll find it’s an illusory wall...

Beliefs in BW impose no more constraint on action declaration and on characterisation than do dead ends in standard D&D.

On the GM side, Beliefs are intended to guide the framing of situations and the narration of consequences. On the player side, Beliefs provide a context for earning artha whether by playing to them or against them.

The closest thing I can think of in standard D&D is alignment. Which is not all that close. 5e Bonds, Ideals and Flaws seem a bit closer but my understanding is that they are not widely used.

 

[pemerton]

Players control the outcome in Snakes and Ladders?

Players roll the dice and move their tokens. Of course in snakes and ladders there is no fiction in any deep sense - just flavour text written on the board. And there is no action declaration of the sort that is found in RPGs. Do you think D&D combat is like snakes and ladders?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Upthread Frogreaver posted this:

Beliefs in BW impose no more constraint on action declaration and on characterisation than do dead ends in standard D&D.

On the GM side, Beliefs are intended to guide the framing of situations and the narration of consequences. On the player side, Beliefs provide a context for earning artha whether by playing to them or against them.

The closest thing I can think of in standard D&D is alignment. Which is not all that close. 5e Bonds, Ideals and Flaws seem a bit closer but my understanding is that they are not widely used.

Alignments, bonds, ideals and flaws are absolutely intended to inform the roleplaying and by reading the BW rules, it is clear that beliefs are meant to do the same. "There is no rule that says that I have to roleplay my character with a belief 'I guard the prince’s life with my own' to actually caring whether the prince lives or dies" is a total dishonest copout.

 

[prabe]

The closest thing I can think of in standard D&D is alignment. Which is not all that close. 5e Bonds, Ideals and Flaws seem a bit closer but my understanding is that they are not widely used.

Bond, Flaws, and Ideals in 5E are a weak, half-hearted afterthought, as the Inspiration mechanic on which they depend. I outright tell the players I DM for not to bother with them unless they want them for themselves as RP aids (which is about all they're good for, IMO).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Bond, Flaws, and Ideals in 5E are a weak, half-hearted afterthought, as the Inspiration mechanic on which they depend. I outright tell the players I DM for not to bother with them unless they want them for themselves as RP aids (which is about all they're good for, IMO).

This is also true. But they're definitely intended to affect roleplay, that's like the reason they're there.

 

[darkbard]

This is also true. But they're definitely intended to affect roleplay, that's like the reason they're there.

This is why system (and its components) matters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is why system (and its components) matters.

I'm not sure I follow.

 

[prabe]

I'm not sure I follow.

I think (and I hope @darkbard will correct me if I'm wrong) that a weak system isn't likely to accomplish its intent. Bonds, etc., and Inspiration are weak mechanics, so they're unlikely to affect roleplay.