D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

Good post.

In Burning Wheel, the GM has a lot of authority, especially when it comes to framing and establishing stakes (whether express or implicit). The player has a lot of authority around their PC, especially during PC build.

When actions are resolved, the dice determine whether (i) the player's desire, expressed via intent + task, becomes part of the shared fiction, or (ii) the GM is allowed to author some adverse consequence, in which intent is not fulfilled (and perhaps task isn't either).

The repeated suggestion that this sort of RPGing is GMless seems silly to me, and not grounded in any attempt to actually take seriously the explanations and examples that have been posted.

I thought players had to set the stakes, or it's a railroad?

 

[pemerton]

I thought players had to set the stakes, or it's a railroad?

Yes. I don't see how that relates to what I posted.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So let me put it another way: if the GM comes up with the world on their own, and tells me what is in it, and uses that stuff they've authored to establish all consequences, then whatever I bring to the table, in my conception of my PC, my aspirations for my PC, etc, are like your example of the digging of the hole. Nothing about the game changes because of them.

A lot of the difference between good narrative play and fairly principled trad play, especially if the trad play is fairly open and character focused can be a little subtle and even a question of degree. As a result I have trouble drawing a hard line in every case. When people post statements about how they play it can't really be evaluated properly. I see that people post opinions that indicate they don't think in narrative terms, but I need actual decent examples of play to know what it means.

I think this leads to the endless swamp...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. I don't see how that relates to what I posted.

Burning Wheel is one of your favored games, so I presume you don't see your play of it as a railroad. One of the ways you stated that a game is a railroading is when the players don't set the stakes.. Yet in BW, as you said above, the GM sets the stakes. This seems like a contradiction to me.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of the difference between good narrative play and fairly principled trad play, especially if the trad play is fairly open and character focused can be a little subtle and even a question of degree. As a result I have trouble drawing a hard line in every case. When people post statements about how they play it can't really be evaluated properly. I see that people post opinions that indicate they don't think in narrative terms, but I need actual decent examples of play to know what it means.

There may be truth to this - I mean, what @uzirath posted doesn't strike me as any sort of weird outlier approach within an overall "trad" framework.

But the number of play examples being provided by those who insist that the GM must be the sole author of nearly everything is zero, or close to, and so it's hard for me to look beyond their statements of what they prefer and what they do to see whether something different is happening in actuality.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There may be truth to this - I mean, what @uzirath posted doesn't strike me as any sort of weird outlier approach within an overall "trad" framework.

But the number of play examples being provided by those who insist that the GM must be the sole author of nearly everything is zero, or close to, and so it's hard for me to look beyond their statements of what they prefer and what they do to see whether something different is happening in actuality.

I've explained my style of play. I and my players enjoy it, and it doesn't affect your style of play at all. What more do you want?

 

[pemerton]

Burning Wheel is one of your favored games, so I presume you don't see your play of it as a railroad. One of the ways you stated that a game is a railroading is when the players don't set the stakes.. Yet in BW, as you said above, the GM sets the stakes. This seems like a contradiction to me.

Do you mean this post?

In Burning Wheel, the GM has a lot of authority, especially when it comes to framing and establishing stakes (whether express or implicit). The player has a lot of authority around their PC, especially during PC build.

When actions are resolved, the dice determine whether (i) the player's desire, expressed via intent + task, becomes part of the shared fiction, or (ii) the GM is allowed to author some adverse consequence, in which intent is not fulfilled (and perhaps task isn't either).

The word "stakes" in the first sentence should probably read "establishing which of the things the player has staked is under threat in the particular moment of play".

What the player stakes is a combination of their immediate intent in the action declaration (intent + task), together with the build elements (Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships etc) that are threatened or put under pressure by the immediate situation the GM has framed.

Consider the example of my failed roll for Thurgon's search of Evard's tower for spellbooks. The GM chose to have, as the failure, the discovery of letters implying that Evard is Thurgon's maternal grandfather. He might have narrated something different, which put pressure on a different set of concerns that I have brought to the table with my build and play of Thurgon, like his place within and commitment to his military order (and this had indeed happened, earlier in the game, when the demon Thurgon fought outside Evard's tower seemed to be connected to some sort of dark secret or pact that had brought the order undone).

So the player brings the stakes, but the GM is the one who puts them under pressure by framing, and weaves them into consequences when checks are failed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you mean this post?

The word "stakes" in the first sentence should probably read "establishing which of the things the player has staked is under threat in the particular moment of play".

What the player stakes is a combination of their immediate intent in the action declaration (intent + task), together with the build elements (Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships etc) that are threatened or put under pressure by the immediate situation the GM has framed.

Consider the example of my failed roll for Thurgon's search of Evard's tower for spellbooks. The GM chose to have, as the failure, the discovery of letters implying that Evard is Thurgon's maternal grandfather. He might have narrated something different, which put pressure on a different set of concerns that I have brought to the table with my build and play of Thurgon, like his place within and commitment to his military order (and this had indeed happened, earlier in the game, when the demon Thurgon fought outside Evard's tower seemed to be connected to some sort of dark secret or pact that had brought the order undone).

So the player brings the stakes, but the GM is the one who puts them under pressure by framing, and weaves them into consequences when checks are failed.

I see. That is consistent with what you've been saying. I apologize.

 

[Faolyn]

And why should it? Just because a PC dug a hole doesn't mean that hole ever needs to be relevant to anything again, and there's no requirement on the GM to make it relevant.

It doesn't have to be relevant at all (depending, of course, on where that hole was dug--digging a hole in a forest is a lot different than digging a hole in the town's main road). I think pemerton thought it should be, though?

The latter is flat-out poor form.

Agreed.

 

[Faolyn]

I think this is a straight-up calumny of what @pemerton is saying.

To me, it seems fairly accurate. They seem upset at the idea that their character would have to have the world described to them, rather than automatically know what it's like (and by that, it means "make it up themselves).

In what world are PbtA cames solely player-authored? In every game that I’ve played, the GM plays a large role in authoring the fiction.

I have no idea. I've only played (GMed) the one, and while my players had massive input into the world, I'm the one who made the map and figured out what the major threats would be and write the Mysteries.

But I think pemerton mostly plays, or at least prefers, Broken Wheel? I know nothing of that game, since it's not sold as a pdf. That may be quite a bit different than PbtA games.