The way Edwards defines simulationism as an agenda is exploration of setting, character, situation or system as an end in itself. That is not what Burning Wheel is for, and it won't do it especially well either (because if you drop the artha rules, PCs will just be hosed).
D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
- Thread starter clearstream
- Start date
My point was more that these things are not specific functional ("process sim") tasks based on typical skills like athletics, picking locks, or (un)armed combat.
Right, the mapping from intent to move is up to the player. Right? (I am reminded that I seriously need to find and read Baker's clouds & boxes stuff, which I'm at best osmotically familiar with, to borrow a term from one of these multiplying GNS/jargon threads.)
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Not that it's particularly important, but there is one case where intent definitely matters in Apocalypse World. If I put a gun in your face with the intention to actually murder you if you do not do what I say it's go aggro. If I have no intention of actually pulling the trigger than it's seduce or manipulate.
The reason this can be important is one of the consequences for go aggro is you shoot the fool because they refuse to do what you wanted them to do. That's why you roll +hard to go aggro. Hard is about being comfortable with violence.
The reason this can be important is one of the consequences for go aggro is you shoot the fool because they refuse to do what you wanted them to do. That's why you roll +hard to go aggro. Hard is about being comfortable with violence.
Last edited:
Crimson Longinus
Legend
The focus of the specific mechanic you quoted is obviously to model the world consistently via mechanics. That is simulation. That doing this may not be the sole focus of BW doesn't change this.
@Manbearcat
My less developed/sophisticated way of thinking about the difference between BW ("objective DCs") and 4e/Cortex+ Heroic ("subjective DCs") is that the latter are less gritty. Which sits in somewhat the same conceptual space as your "hard mode" and "struggle".
But Prince Valiant also uses objective DCs - it's actually quite close to BW in its core action resolution mechanic - yet isn't gritty at all, basically because it doesn't produce lasting consequences in the way BW does. (It has analogues of tax, but they generally don't hang around like they do in BW.) And also because it doesn't require you to lose to advance.
That's why I've been quoting the Luke Crane passage from the Adventure Burner about the role of "objective DCs" in establishing setting, which is true across BW and Prince Valiant. Whereas in the "subjective DC" games I see that as coming from elsewhere - eg in Cortex+ Heroic it is from Scene Distinctions. Which makes setting in that system more "stylised" - which is why it's good for Marvel, and for LotR!
My less developed/sophisticated way of thinking about the difference between BW ("objective DCs") and 4e/Cortex+ Heroic ("subjective DCs") is that the latter are less gritty. Which sits in somewhat the same conceptual space as your "hard mode" and "struggle".
But Prince Valiant also uses objective DCs - it's actually quite close to BW in its core action resolution mechanic - yet isn't gritty at all, basically because it doesn't produce lasting consequences in the way BW does. (It has analogues of tax, but they generally don't hang around like they do in BW.) And also because it doesn't require you to lose to advance.
That's why I've been quoting the Luke Crane passage from the Adventure Burner about the role of "objective DCs" in establishing setting, which is true across BW and Prince Valiant. Whereas in the "subjective DC" games I see that as coming from elsewhere - eg in Cortex+ Heroic it is from Scene Distinctions. Which makes setting in that system more "stylised" - which is why it's good for Marvel, and for LotR!
True!
Subject to @Campbell's point that I've quoted, if the player has their PC do something that triggers a move then they're making that move.
From p 12:
The particular things that make these rules kick in are called moves.
All of the character playbooks list the same set of basic moves, plus each playbook lists special moves for just that character. Your fronts might list special moves too. When a player says that her character does something listed as a move, that’s when she rolls, and that’s the only time she does.
The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice.
Usually it’s unambiguous: “dammit, I guess I crawl out there. I try to keep my head down. I’m doing it under fire?” “Yep.” But there are two ways they sometimes don’t line up, and it’s your job as MC to deal with them.
First is when a player says only that her character makes a move, without having her character actually take any such action. For instance: “I go aggro on him.” Your answer then should be “cool, what do you do?” “I seize the radio by force.” “Cool, what do you do?” “I try to seduce him.” “Cool, what do you do?”
Second is when a player has her character take action that counts as a move, but doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t intend it to be a move. For instance: “I shove him out of my way.” Your answer then should be “cool, you’re going aggro?” “I pout. ‘Well if you really don’t like me…’” “Cool, you’re trying to manipulate him?” “I squeeze way back between the tractor and the wall so they don’t see me.” “Cool, you’re acting under fire?”
You don’t ask in order to give the player a chance to decline to roll, you ask in order to give the player a chance to revise her character’s action if she really didn’t mean to make the move. “Cool, you’re going aggro?” Legit: “oh! No, no, if he’s really blocking the door, whatever, I’ll go the other way.” Not legit: “well no, I’m just shoving him out of my way, I don’t want to roll for it.” The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice.
All of the character playbooks list the same set of basic moves, plus each playbook lists special moves for just that character. Your fronts might list special moves too. When a player says that her character does something listed as a move, that’s when she rolls, and that’s the only time she does.
The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice.
Usually it’s unambiguous: “dammit, I guess I crawl out there. I try to keep my head down. I’m doing it under fire?” “Yep.” But there are two ways they sometimes don’t line up, and it’s your job as MC to deal with them.
First is when a player says only that her character makes a move, without having her character actually take any such action. For instance: “I go aggro on him.” Your answer then should be “cool, what do you do?” “I seize the radio by force.” “Cool, what do you do?” “I try to seduce him.” “Cool, what do you do?”
Second is when a player has her character take action that counts as a move, but doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t intend it to be a move. For instance: “I shove him out of my way.” Your answer then should be “cool, you’re going aggro?” “I pout. ‘Well if you really don’t like me…’” “Cool, you’re trying to manipulate him?” “I squeeze way back between the tractor and the wall so they don’t see me.” “Cool, you’re acting under fire?”
You don’t ask in order to give the player a chance to decline to roll, you ask in order to give the player a chance to revise her character’s action if she really didn’t mean to make the move. “Cool, you’re going aggro?” Legit: “oh! No, no, if he’s really blocking the door, whatever, I’ll go the other way.” Not legit: “well no, I’m just shoving him out of my way, I don’t want to roll for it.” The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice.
So the player's intent isn't really a factor (again, subject to the go aggro vs seduce/manipulate distinction). It's what their PC does.
This is why the design of moves is so fundamental in a PbtA game: by choosing to make things moves, you're making those the fulcrum on which stakes turn. Because otherwise, if no move is triggered by an action declaration, here's how it works (from pp 116-7):
Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things [ie a MC move] and say it. . . . Then, “what do you do?” . . .
Remember the principles. Remember to address yourself to the characters, remember to misdirect, and remember to never speak your move’s name. Say what happens to the characters as though it were their world that’s the real one.
Here are guidelines for choosing your moves:
Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.
Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.
However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.
But again, unless a player’s character has handed you the opportunity, limit yourself to a move that sets up future moves, your own and the players’ characters’.
Remember the principles. Remember to address yourself to the characters, remember to misdirect, and remember to never speak your move’s name. Say what happens to the characters as though it were their world that’s the real one.
Here are guidelines for choosing your moves:
Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.
Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.
However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.
But again, unless a player’s character has handed you the opportunity, limit yourself to a move that sets up future moves, your own and the players’ characters’.
At least as I read it, there's no "say 'yes' or roll the dice" in AW. (And given that Baker wrote that into DitV, which is where BW takes it from, with acknowledgements, I think he would have written it into AW if he intended it to be part of the game.) So if I'm looking for my friend who I think is in trouble on the other side of the ravine, and I declare as my action that I jump my bike over the ravine, then - assuming I'm not under fire - the GM can't call for a roll. They just make a move - if they'd already made a soft move ("It's a wide ravine") then they can make a hard move, cause I've handed it to them on a plate ("You almost make it, but . . ."); otherwise a soft move ("You make it across, but when you land on the other side a sound comes from the rear axle that doesn't sound good . . . what do you do?").
Whereas in BW, jumping the ravine (probably on a horse rather than a bike) would be exactly the time to call for a check rather than saying "yes", because it feeds directly into the stakes of will I get to my friend on time.
This is also why custom moves - for particular threats be they NPCs, or places, or whatever - are so important in AW, because this is how the game reflects the emergence of particular stakes in the particular play of the game. In that way, custom moves are completely different in function from D&D-ish or RM-ish "house rules" intended to make the game work more smoothly or to improve the quality of a simulation.
It's not to "model" the world. It's to represent the world to the player at a certain point in the action resolution process. But the GM can "say 'yes'" instead of presenting an obstacle at all. Or when presented with an obstacle, a player can bring so much artha to bear, getting extra dice, rerolls etc, that a "hard" obstacle is easily overcome.
All RPGing depends upon presenting the world in some or other fashion. BW (and Torchbearer, and Prince Valiant) do that by presenting it, at key moments, in terms of "objective" difficulty ratings. That's what it's for. It's not doing more than that.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
This is really bizarre 'no true Scotsman' wriggling. If you are drawing the difficulty of the safe opening from the quality of the chest in the fictional world, then that mechanic absolutely is modelling, simulating, that fictional world. Mechanics that "create a sense of space and logic in the game world" are absolutely simulationistic mechanics.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I can see an argument about post-apoc games but, well, you brought them up first. Cyberpunk should absolutely fit in that category unless your concept requires space travel to be involved.
I don't think it requires a lockstep advancement system for people to find experience systems to be a motivator. In fact, I'll flat out say nothing I've seen over the decades supports this, or any number of somewhat-degenerate habits in other game systems that didn't use levels would have occurred. Bluntly, many of them showed a greater degree of difference in characters who'd accumulated a modest amount of experience than any OD&D fighter or thief did. I'd be willing to put money that the difference between a second and third level OD&D fighter was nearly invisible in play, something you couldn't say about most any other game with an experience system unless someone proactively went out of their way to produce that, and such people were the least likely to care.
Space Quest was, in essence, D&D in space. It had levels, classes, hit points, and accumulating high-tech gear was a big deal. Almost no one knows about it. If that sort of dynamic was all that was needed, it wouldn't be. Heck, even other fantasy games of a similar structure for the most part got nearly nowhere in many cases. I stand by my opinion that D&D's early-adopter benefit was going to be difficult for anyone to unseat, and being in another genre, even if you mimicked its reward structure, was not going to help.
In any case, if you want a statute of limitations of how recent the examples can be, you're going to have to be more specific about that. Cyberpunk 2013 came out in 1988. If you set it much farther back than that, you're progressively narrowing the number of games that exist at all, so it anything, D&D's gravitational advantage increases.
Then I think its on you to explain how such structures have not been particularly common outside of the immediate D&D sphere in most anything successful. I mean, you can make an argument for Palladium maybe, but until the D20 glut, other than that there was--what? If that was a good model, why did none of the other games that used it get much of anywhere?
If you think its worthwhile, start a thread, but my experience is that it runs into cause-and-effect problems. There's a thread about SF games going now which has discussed this very topic and doesn't seem to have progressed anywhere.
Last edited:
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
That's helpful.
If I might risk elaborating. What is being implied is that Character 'skills' are always defined in relation to something and that the something need not be the fictional world. That's a very interesting claim.
So in D&D a characters 'skills' are defined in relation to in the fictional world. Because of this relationship, skill checks carry fictional meaning - they represent a characters ability tested against an obstacle within that fictional world.
In PbtA a characters 'skills' are defined in relation to the 'Story'. Because of this relationship these skill checks carry a 'Story' meaning - they represent the player's direction for a successful dramatic moment tested against the difficulty of the conflict.
Does this sound correct to you. If so I think a solid groundwork for me to continue discussion from.
