D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there's a defensible position that some classes of immersion are incompatible with mechanics that can be viewed as "unavailable" on an in-character level. its just hard to talk about because there's at least two different threads of thought about what "immersion" means, and they aren't particularly compatible in their assumptions.

See my response to @pemerton just before this. I do get what distinction you are making. It just seems to me, feels to me, like you went to an arbitrary point in the Sahara Desert and drew a line. I am not able to see what really makes them different areas.

I mean, how 'material' does the invocation of process have to be? Would it be OK if the player asked "Hey, do you think maybe I stuffed that extra bit of rope back in my pack back there? I think I need it now!"? If that is OK, then why not something I might have done 2 days ago that is in keeping with my character? I don't even have to INVOKE this, I can just say "I rummage through my backpack to see if I still have some extra rope." People do this kind of stuff all the time. I need a car jack, I check the back of my car. I KNOW the one I normally carry is broken, but MAYBE sometime in the last 5 years I left something back there that I can use.

 

[pemerton]

In classic D&D you trundle along the corridor and you describe to the GM what you are doing, poking the floor with your 10' pole, searching the walls for secret traps, scanning the ceiling for lurkers above, etc. These are all obviously cloaked strictly in the 'action process' paradigm, but they are concrete actions related specifically to the GM-provided fiction. You could go through this whole exploration routine without ever jumping out of actor stance. If a situation comes along where a roll is called for, suppose a monster comes along and you want to know who is surprised, classically the GM could roll it himself (not sure what Gygax would say to that, except it is allowable). Even if the player rolls, they aren't selecting a course of action, they are simply RESOLVING an already selected action. The action is tied closely to a fictional process or circumstance. The goblins get surprise, they leap out of the shadows, blows are exchanged, there's initiative checks, attack and damage rolls, etc. Again this is built very close to the action. The fighter doesn't have any 'choose what power to use' kind of choices, only resolution of in fiction stuff. The wizard is maybe a bit different, but Vancian Casting is engineered to give something close to the same experience!

I think this WAS a cardinal principle of D&D design. I'm not sure if it was something Dave Arneson conceived for immersion reasons, or if it was simply an outgrowth of keeping the rules fairly light weight and Gary's desire to put the DM firmly at the center of the game. Either way, it is a trait of early classic D&D. I am more dubious about it existing in MODERN D&D!

Yeah, and I think my description of classic D&D illustrates that it has that property (or can have, I'm sure it is not guaranteed in every game). I think, at least as conceived by me above, it DOES have the property of technically allowing you to remain in an actor stance DURING PLAY. However, there is a vast amount of 'stuff' you cannot address in that kind of play, or which you have to just arrange for by the super meta-gamey genre conventions and table play conventions of classic D&D (IE the dungeon itself as a model of adventure). I think in the end we end up at the same place, and we both wonder why people who accept the super meta-gamey conventions then balk at 'Wises Checks', why is that some sort of line in the sand?

Part of my point is that there is no particular correlation between is a mechanic consistent with Actor Stance and is a mechanic in respect of which every outcome that might flow from its use is an outcome that, in the fiction, flows primarily from the causal powers of the character.

As you say, classic D&D is replete with mechanics in the second of the two classes mentioned in the previous paragraph (at least if we bracket the interpretation of hp, saving throws etc as "supernatural forces"). But classic D&D is played overwhelmingly in Author Stance (or Pawn Stance), not in Actor Stance. The player makes decisions based on the metagame imperative of beating the dungeon, and character motivations, if they come up at all, are retrofitted in the moment of play to support this. Perhaps sometimes alignment serves a purpose here too.

Conversely, Wises and Circles in Burning Wheel are not mechanics in the second of the two classes, because the main outcome from remembering X is the truth of X, and the main outcome from fulfilling one's hope to meet Y is the presence, here-and-now, of Y - and neither the truth of X nor the presence, here-and-now, of Y flows primarily from the causal powers of the character.

Yet Wises and Circles are quite consistent with Actor Stance, because it does not require thinking beyond the motivations and circumstances of one's character to envisage him/her remembering something or hoping to meet someone.

To link this to @Campbell's point upthread about the "feel" of different mechanics: in OGL Conan there is an option to spend a Fate point to have a convenient chance meeting with a NPC. This is intended to emulate (eg) Zenobia helping Conan to escape in The Hour of the Dragon. I think that Circles is a better mechanic than this OGL Conan one, from the point of view of character inhabitation, because in the OGL Conan case what I do as a player is decide that a particular NPC will turn up, which clearly is not something my PC can do. Whereas in the case of Circles what I do is hope that particular NPC will turn up, which clearly is something my PC and do, and then the dice settle the question of whether or not the hope is satisfied.

The expenditure of a Plot Point during an Action Scene to create a Resource in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic is intermediate between the two systems - it's a decision the player makes, but is only permitted when the GM rolls a 1 (an Opportunity, in the jargon of the system). I think this puts less pressure on Actor Stance than the OGL Conan approach, but is not as seamless as Circles.

I think it's a huge strength of Burning Wheel to have (i) recognised that the purpose of dice in action declaration is to settle contentious matters in the fiction - where the contention arises from the possible gap between what the character wants and what actually happens, and (ii) to have generalised this beyond circumstances where the character is the main causal factor to cases like remembering things, and hoping to meet people. Just as sometimes your aim is not reliable, so sometimes neither is your memory; and just as sometimes your hopes for (eg) scaling the wall are dashed, so likewise sometimes are your hopes for finding a secret way out, or having someone turn up ready to help you out!

 

[Thomas Shey]

See my response to @pemerton just before this. I do get what distinction you are making. It just seems to me, feels to me, like you went to an arbitrary point in the Sahara Desert and drew a line. I am not able to see what really makes them different areas.

But of course people do that all the time. They're called "borders". And that's the gig, something can seem meaningless to one person while being quite important to another, and while all of it is a rationalization on some level, that doesn't mean it doesn't seem coherent internally.

I mean, how 'material' does the invocation of process have to be? Would it be OK if the player asked "Hey, do you think maybe I stuffed that extra bit of rope back in my pack back there? I think I need it now!"? If that is OK, then why not something I might have done 2 days ago that is in keeping with my character? I don't even have to INVOKE this, I can just say "I rummage through my backpack to see if I still have some extra rope." People do this kind of stuff all the time. I need a car jack, I check the back of my car. I KNOW the one I normally carry is broken, but MAYBE sometime in the last 5 years I left something back there that I can use.

Well, that tends to turn on other issues, specifically how fine you want to sift resource management and the like. In a game where the convention isn't to be to tight about that, I doubt an immersive would blink at that--but they also wouldn't expect to need to spend anything special to do it. It'd either be an agreement that it appears reasonable between the player or the GM, or a random die roll of some sort.

That's the issue of course; most metacurrencies (recalling caveats I've presented earlier) are about authorship-on-the-fly, and at least the being-character immersives don't want to be doing that during actual IC play. And a metacurrency in that situation only makes sense in that context; it requires the player to decide what that's worth to them (since its a finite resource) and they don't want to be making that decision at that part of play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Abstraction is a relation - the abstract thing has been abstracted from ("detached from") something.

@Campbell has already replied, but I can elaborate. The abstraction in the presentation of the gameworld - which Campbell goes on to describe as "detached and academic" in contrast to the "personal and immediate" - is abstraction from the experience of and life of the character. There are a number of ways this typically occurs in RPGing. Campbell gives one - the presentation of space in terms of bird's eye or even god's eye views and precise measurements (as in the classic wargaming or gridded battle mat) rather than in terms that characterise the character's perception ("near", "far", "right up on top of you!", etc). Another would be the presentation of information about the setting in the form of an encyclopaedia or travel guide entry, rather than as the sort of recollection and cultural experience that is a person's source of knowledge about places they are not a tourist.

These two things can intersect: I live in an inner suburb of a city that is more than one hundred years old. The streets were laid out in the nineteenth century, and still include many lanes that once facilitated "night soil" collection. Despite having lived in the same suburb for over 20 years, I can still go for a walk and be surprised by encountering a little side street or lane that either I've never noticed before, or have certainly forgotten about and (eg) could not have directed anyone to had they asked me. On the other hand, if someone asks me for directions to a cafe or pub or chemist or supermarket or which tram to take to go where, I can easily tell them. This is basically the opposite to the traditional RPG map-and-key method, where - if the players are shown the GM's map - knowledge of the layout is perfect, while being able to actually find one's way around the place (the inns, the apothecaries, the butchers, etc) depends on quizzing the GM about his/her key.

I do think you are pointing to something valid when it comes to running a world. I also think there are different solutions to this issue (and I realize our solutions and conceptions of this may differ, but the problem is there regardless). I liken this to a divide I noticed recently among many fans when it comes to maps (and a divide I have especially seen among people who take the 'exploring the world approach'. Basically when you have a map of a province, of a region of a small area, or even a city, what does that imply about the spaces in between? For instance, I often encounter fans of Ravenloft who have a totally different notion than I do of how many towns, homesteads, villages, etc are present. Some people see the map and conclude, those are the settlements present. I look at a map and always assume this is broad stroke, like when I look at a map of the Roman empire that doesn't have all the cities (it is assumed there are places not present on the map). A GM can refine and refine, but most GMs are not going to be completely exhaustive (and this is especially true of city maps, where the street level view you describe is definitely not going to be covered unless the GM gives his city the kind of detail you would find on a modern city map or google earth). So there needs to be wiggle room here for how to manage that. The solutions I lean to tend to be utilization of a combination of randomization, extrapolation, and, very often, pinning things down as I go. But there isn't one way that works.

 

[pemerton]

And a metacurrency in that situation only makes sense in that context; it requires the player to decide what that's worth to them (since its a finite resource) and they don't want to be making that decision at that part of play.

To me, this correlates with trying really hard; or if I'm searching through the back of my car for some rope or a jack, it correlates to hoping really hard. (Maybe I'm atypical as a human being - but I don't always try my hardest, and my hopes aren't always so intense that my heart is in my mouth.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I personally tend to view direct authorship (on either side of the screen) as a necessary evil if we want to have depth of fiction which I value more than avoiding authoring entirely, but I like to keep it somewhat separate. So like Apocalypse World style questions are awesome because it creates a mode shift, but I am not deeply enamored of dramatic editing or Circles checks. Mostly I want us all to get to the point where we don't need to do more direct authoring as soon as possible. I do recognize that all play is fundamentally authorship though.

So, what you are saying is you would like the authorship to be part of a discrete process that is completely separated from the 'action resolution/narrative resolution' processes that happen in a purer in-character actor mode? That is an interesting observation and thought from a game-designer perspective. I mean, I agree that PbtA does tend to separate those things, 'questions' mostly are either A) to the GM due to moves DR/SL, etc. or B) the GM questions the players in a distinct aside which is mechanically detached from any kind of resolution (there are no meta-game constructs even here, it is pure 'tell me how things are').

Now I'm thinking about how other games could handle that. I broke my play up into interludes where there are basically no mechanics, plus challenges where there are, so if an 'interlude' is really a session of "GM and players go back and forth in an authorship stance building fiction" that would be a pretty hard separation, pretty much like how PbtA does it, but maybe even making that distinction a little more explicit/formal. Maybe that is overkill though, lol.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To me, this correlates with trying really hard; or if I'm searching through the back of my car for some rope or a jack, it correlates to hoping really hard. (Maybe I'm atypical as a human being - but I don't always try my hardest, and my hopes aren't always so intense that my heart is in my mouth.)

That works for metacurrencies that are representations of at least something in setting (Storyteller Willpower comes to mind), but I don't think it works for a lot of immersives with more broad and undefined ones like Fate Points. In the case of the rope, I think for most people there's too much disconnect between any expenditure and whether the rope is there (this is in contrast to something like looking around the room for for an improvised weapon, where unless you're in one of those "the GM is supposed to define absolutely everything there in the description and nothing else should be there" ethos games, you can ascribe it to actual effort in the here-and-now, so a resource that represents that can be more acceptable. To make that work with the rope requires, essentially, the metacurrency reaching back across time, and unless its carefully defined to represent something that would have applied earlier (and maybe even then) I suspect for most its a bridge too far.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, what you are saying is you would like the authorship to be part of a discrete process that is completely separated from the 'action resolution/narrative resolution' processes that happen in a purer in-character actor mode? That is an interesting observation and thought from a game-designer perspective. I mean, I agree that PbtA does tend to separate those things, 'questions' mostly are either A) to the GM due to moves DR/SL, etc. or B) the GM questions the players in a distinct aside which is mechanically detached from any kind of resolution (there are no meta-game constructs even here, it is pure 'tell me how things are').

I suspect it normally needs to be done at a different time. I've got a very immersive player who is perfectly willing to develop and expand on her character during downtime, but doing it in the middle of other things would pull her out of character in a way she'd find very unpleasant.

Now I'm thinking about how other games could handle that. I broke my play up into interludes where there are basically no mechanics, plus challenges where there are, so if an 'interlude' is really a session of "GM and players go back and forth in an authorship stance building fiction" that would be a pretty hard separation, pretty much like how PbtA does it, but maybe even making that distinction a little more explicit/formal. Maybe that is overkill though, lol.

Doesn't seem overkill to me, on observation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Part of my point is that there is no particular correlation between is a mechanic consistent with Actor Stance and is a mechanic in respect of which every outcome that might flow from its use is an outcome that, in the fiction, flows primarily from the causal powers of the character.

Right, I think that what I am saying is that in classic D&D everything the player does mechanically "flows primarily from the causal powers of the character."

As you say, classic D&D is replete with mechanics in the second of the two classes mentioned in the previous paragraph (at least if we bracket the interpretation of hp, saving throws etc as "supernatural forces"). But classic D&D is played overwhelmingly in Author Stance (or Pawn Stance), not in Actor Stance. The player makes decisions based on the metagame imperative of beating the dungeon, and character motivations, if they come up at all, are retrofitted in the moment of play to support this. Perhaps sometimes alignment serves a purpose here too.

In practice I also agree here. If the party is marching down the dungeon and Stumpy The Dwarf is in the lead and he's suddenly caught in a leghold trap while poison gas fills the room, the logical and 'skilled play' thing for the 1st level PCs to do is just beat feet out of there and roll up Stumpy #2! Yeah, the tools exist in theory for Ruggles Quick Finger to say "but he's my friend, I try to disengage the trap!" Heck, it is just THERE, but it would be a stupid move rewarded with the Thief player getting roll up Ruggles Quick Finger #2 as well... (or maybe not, but the players need to think about the GAME and the meta-game, and calculate based on the virtually zero value of a fresh level 1 PC).

Conversely, Wises and Circles in Burning Wheel are not mechanics in the second of the two classes, because the main outcome from remembering X is the truth of X, and the main outcome from fulfilling one's hope to meet Y is the presence, here-and-now, of Y - and neither the truth of X nor the presence, here-and-now, of Y flows primarily from the causal powers of the character.

Yet Wises and Circles are quite consistent with Actor Stance, because it does not require thinking beyond the motivations and circumstances of one's character to envisage him/her remembering something or hoping to meet someone.

Right. Now, I suppose that some players might also think in the gamist terms above, but BW has mechanics that will push back against that too! That is, player choices have teeth in a few ways, and making such a cold-hearted choice as abandoning your dwarf friend would certainly be character defining!

To link this to @Campbell's point upthread about the "feel" of different mechanics: in OGL Conan there is an option to spend a Fate point to have a convenient chance meeting with a NPC. This is intended to emulate (eg) Zenobia helping Conan to escape in The Hour of the Dragon. I think that Circles is a better mechanic than this OGL Conan one, from the point of view of character inhabitation, because in the OGL Conan case what I do as a player is decide that a particular NPC will turn up, which clearly is not something my PC can do. Whereas in the case of Circles what I do is hope that particular NPC will turn up, which clearly is something my PC and do, and then the dice settle the question of whether or not the hope is satisfied.

It is a subtle distinction to some perhaps, but I get it, yes. I agree with the analysis as well.

The expenditure of a Plot Point during an Action Scene to create a Resource in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic is intermediate between the two systems - it's a decision the player makes, but is only permitted when the GM rolls a 1 (an Opportunity, in the jargon of the system). I think this puts less pressure on Actor Stance than the OGL Conan approach, but is not as seamless as Circles.

I think it's a huge strength of Burning Wheel to have (i) recognised that the purpose of dice in action declaration is to settle contentious matters in the fiction - where the contention arises from the possible gap between what the character wants and what actually happens, and (ii) to have generalised this beyond circumstances where the character is the main causal factor to cases like remembering things, and hoping to meet people. Just as sometimes your aim is not reliable, so sometimes neither is your memory; and just as sometimes your hopes for (eg) scaling the wall are dashed, so likewise sometimes are your hopes for finding a secret way out, or having someone turn up ready to help you out!

Right, PbtA leaves this mainly on the GM side because it is the GM who asks all these 'questions' and then is bound USING HIS OWN JUDGMENT to frame the answers into scenes (except in the cases of bonds, alignment, and general character backstory where the players have pretty much limitless authority). BW doesn't specifically talk about asking questions and such, but it is giving the player the ability to invoke things like Wises or Circles.

In my game you can invoke your plot point (inspiration basically, but better than the WotC version of it) to leverage an attribute of your PC into a new fiction element which you desire. So it could come close to being something like a Circles check (IE you would say "My cousin shows up, see here he's listed on my sheet as a contact I got from my family background starting boon."). There wouldn't be a check, although since it would almost certainly be in the context of a challenge that is a bit moot I think.

 

[pemerton]

To make that work with the rope requires, essentially, the metacurrency reaching back across time, and unless its carefully defined to represent something that would have applied earlier (and maybe even then) I suspect for most its a bridge too far.

In my view, not if the fate point or whatever is hoping/trying - in BW, for instance, this would be spending Fate and/or Persona on a Scavenging check.

As you can see, I'm bringing this back to my contrast not far upthread between "fortune"-governed authorship (BW Wises, Circles, Scavenging, etc) and "karma"-determined authorship (eg OGL Conan). I think these produce very different feels.

Then there is the different feel again that @Campbell and @AbdulAlhazred have pointed to with player-back-and-forth-with-GM in an explicitly "out of character" moment of play.