D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[pemerton]

Maybe. BW leaves the question of spellbooks to setting and/or types of magic used. In the last BW game I ran, it was a setting question: we used Sorcery from the main books, and magic was mathematical (think DC's New Gods and the Anti-Life Equation).

Just to add to this, and in response to @Faolyn:

Ged (in A Wizard of Earthsea) can cast spells, even as a relatively young boy (he summons the fog to confuse the raiders). But he also benefits from spellbooks (it is a mistake with a spellbook that causes the unleashing of his "shadow" in the first place). So when I think spellbooks, I'm not necessarily thinking of it through the lens of D&D's idiosyncratic rules about how magic-users memorise spells for the day.

BW has default rules for leaning new spells, and I think Aramina could learn spells from a spellbook. The base roll would be on Sorcery, probably FoRKing in Reading and Symbology.

The other thing to note is that looting and treasure isn't handled the same as in other games, either. It's not a primary driver of play (unless, of course, it's related to your beliefs, instincts, and traits or the situation at hand).

My principal gloss on this would that looting isn't handled D&D-style in most of the RPGs that I play (with Torchbearer being an obvious exception). In Traveller, the PCs look to get paid but not to steal or pillage. In Prince Valiant, they are knights leading a warband: if they defeat a foe riding a princely steed naturally they keep it, but it's not much like clearing out the first level of the dungeon in Moldvay Basic!

Aedhros did acquire loot, in the sense that one of his first actions in play was to pick the pocket of a ship master (to try and get money for board), and although he didn't murder the innkeeper, he did steal his shoes so that he (Aedhros) would not have to go about barefoot.

Why would the GM have decided that there were spellbooks there ahead of time? They weren't playing a game about Evard's spellbooks. Aramina's belief is nonspecific. Evard's spellbooks are as good as any other. I don't think this is radical, but, for me, a good deal of BW GMing is about being open to possibilities and knowing what NPCs and PCs want.

Yes to all of this!

EDITed to clean up some messy tags.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not in my view - see below...

The agency to make that choice at all, and in later hindsight see that choice - even made randomly - led to an outcome that was materially different than had I (at random) chosen differently.

On the surface, games where the PCs are framed into scenes with limited if any ability to control anything around how-where-when those scenes appear.

For example, if the next move toward our party's* goal is to meet with a contact at 3 p.m. in the square, framing us straight into that meeting denies us the agency to scout the site out ahead of time (risk reduction), or to maybe ID and follow/check out the contact beforehand (info gathering), or to change our minds and only send some of us - or nobody - based on either some new info or on just a "bad feeling about this" (risk reduction and-or simple mind-changing).

And that hammers our agency pretty hard.

Now I understand that simple mind-changing might be seen as violating the precept "If you do it, you do it" (a precept I can certainly get behind!), and that's fair; but I don't think that precept goes so far as to include "If you plan to do it, you do it" as plans can (and ought to be allowed to) change.

* - or that of an individual character, whichever.

First no GM who's got any competency in narrativist scene-framing is simply blink-blinking characters here and there. In fact that's an amazingly good way to railroad! I've never seen this behavior. This is why games like Dungeon World don't just emphasize principles and agenda, they formulate these things as hard rules (as hard as and binding as any rule in any RPG can be). Yes, scenes follow other scenes, but the GM asks questions, the players indicate what their plans are, they can MAKE plans, and nobody is going to say 'boing!' you're over here standing in front of NPC X! without going through this kind of exercise. The only time anything close to that might happen is in some very rapidly evolving situation where stuff just comes at the PCs very quickly.

SECONDLY every game elides stuff! You MOST CERTAINLY do not describe every shop front, every pedestrian, every town watch guy, etc. etc. etc. along the way between X and Y, so how are you not guilty of the same thing? I mean, I for one don't think you are! Nor am I when I run Dungeon World! We each consider the situation, what the players have stated their goals are, give everyone a chance to suggest whatever input they have, or change their minds, etc.! This is not some sort of magical thing that only happens in certain types of play.

Heck, games like BitD go FURTHER, there are specific phases of the game where you can consider all the information gathering, planning, resource acquisition, and other prep, with specific subsystems that help mediate these. Play in BitD seems to me to be especially dense with these sorts of cross checks, etc. That and you can literally go back later, possibly at a modest cost, and handle something your character should have thought of, or that you can describe some reason why they knew to handle earlier in the chronology. I'd find it very hard to see a BitD game where what you are describing happens, and it would almost certainly be degenerate play.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

In a case like this... because it's a wizard's tower. Maybe it's abandoned because the wizard was killed or imprisoned elsewhere and his tower hadn't been looted yet, rather than the wizard moved on and took all his stuff with them; obviously I don't know the specifics. Having a spellbook makes as much sense in such a location as having a chair or a cauldron or a lab where magical creatures are dissected. If the party went to a blacksmith's shop, it would make sense for there to be an anvil and iron ingots lying around, right? A spellbook wouldn't necessarily be out in the open like an anvil would be, but it makes sense that the GM would have decided that they existed ahead of time (or that spellbooks had been there at one point, but have since been removed).

BW may not be a game about Evard's spellbooks, but presumably it is a game where NPCs have lives outside of the PCs and therefore, their homes and places of work have things in them. At least, I should hope so!

So, I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. And I don't disagree with your first, either, but I'd soften it, at least for BW. Unless the game is about a MacGuffin of some sort, then (1) knowing the precise location of items isn't that important, and knowing the exact contents of the tower isn't important; and (2) predetermining what's in the tower closes off possible avenues for the fiction and makes it harder to honor BW's procedures. What's important is being open to the possibilities that come up in play. All the things you're saying would work — it absolutely makes sense for there to be spellboks in a wizard's tower, abandoned or otherwise, yet nevertheless Thurgon didn't find them and found the letters instead. What that means about the spellbooks is TBD at that point, left for the players to chase or not, as they want. Aramina's player could rewrite her beliefs and become obsessed with Evard's spellbooks, which could then drive additional play along those lines.

Separate from this talk about whether the spellbooks are there or not, I think this is clever resolution, as it doesn't turn the consequences of Thurgon's failure onto Aramina. Instead, Thurgon finds out that grandpa's an evil wizard, and Aramina can still pursue her belief in accordance with her player's desires.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I tried bringing that up before in another thread. May your fate with it be better than was mine.

Think of it this way… the spellbooks are where they are, neither the players nor the GM know until the dice decide in some way.

The GM doesn’t have to know ahead of the players. This is a big part of what “play to find out” means.

To be clear, as always, If I'm talking about a specific game I will use it's name.

Okay, it’s a but tricky to address your comments without knowing what game you’re talking about, but I’ll give it a try.

But why? Was it the rules somehow? Was it the Style of Game play? Was it the GM? Something else?

A little bit of all of the above, depending on the game. Blades in the Dark, for example, allows players to influence what happens in the game by using a resource called Stress. They can get extra dice or they can reduce the effects of harm or other consequences by using stress. They can also flashback to establish something previously unknown that may help them. But they have to be careful about how they use Stress because once they’re out, they are out of the current mission, and they take a Trauma, which is a permanent condition. If they get four Traumas, then the character’s time is done; they either die or retire.

Another game I’ve run recently is Spire: The City Must Fall. In that game, most classes have some abilities that allow them to establish things that are true about the setting. For example, once per game session, the Knight class can say that there is a pub nearby and that he knows the owner. The GM has to allow this… though the GM gets to decide how the owner of this pub feels about the Knight. So this is a limited resource that can only be used once per game session, and which the GM may make more complicated for the Knight if that’s what makes sense.

In both cases, the players are given more ability to steer how things go. In neither case is the ability unlimited or game breaking.

Based on Experience. I wounder what point your trying to make here? Even if I named a game and said I played in a game where X happened, you would not care or believe my story, right?

I’m trying to understand what game you’re referencing because it doesn’t sound like anything I’m familiar with, where players can just grant themselves unlimited hit points or any of that. I assume you’re exaggerating, so I asked what game you were thinking of.

Well, no, I specifically don't do that. I mean I'm very clear about it, but few people I game with "get it".

Mismatched expectations are always a problem.

Guess they all plan to show up and talk to me about it on Saturday. Sigh...

My suggestion, if you care to keep the game going, would be to listen to them and give their comments some serious consideration. Talk to them about what they want from the game and then share what you want from the game, and find something that works for everyone.

 

[Campbell]

I primarily run games oriented towards the concerns of the player characters, but I very much do so because that is what interests me. I am not being a servant. Many players want to play in games that are about freeform exploration of the environment or where the GM leads them through a plot that is disconnected from their characters. I don't run those sorts of games not because I'm a servant but because I have no interest in it. I don't run those games because I do not want to be the one providing all the juice for making the game compelling.

The notion that a focus on character over GM Storytelling or casual exploration of the setting for its own sake is somehow just catering to players is absurd. I personally need the juice from compelling characters to motivate me to prep and run the game. I'm not in it to tell a story or build a world. I want to get invested in characters who want/need things and willing to go after them. I enjoy providing honest antagonism and building off the characters the players have made.

When I run Apocalypse World, I am no servant. I am both an active vibrant participant and an audience member who gets to find out how things turn out.

It's important to not generalize about what motivates GMs to run games. We're not all the same.

 

[pemerton]

Typically, GMs put down objects, potentially important ones, in a location for PCs to interact with in some manner, such as to take, destroy, or use. Spellbooks are usually considered important objects--although apparently not in BW.

This is not how BW works. At the core of BW is the framing of the scene - establishing a situation that, in some manner, engages or challenges or puts pressure on a PCs' Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships etc - and then the resolution of action declarations. (Which is via "intent and task", "say 'yes' or roll the dice", and "let it ride" - you can read more about all these in the free PDF that I pointed you to not far upthread).

Hidden notes, that the GM gradually reveals by using them as guides to action resolution as players "poke" at the setting, are not a very important part of play.

That's not to say that the GM mightn't have secret ideas. But these don't serve as guides to action resolution as players "poke" at the setting (cf the way a map and key works in typical D&D play, which precisely does have the purpose of guiding action resolution when players declare actions like "We search for secret doors" or "We listen at the door"). Those secret ideas might provide material to draw on in framing, or in narrating consequences. They are like aides memoire to the imagination; they are NOT pre-established elements of the shared fiction, just waiting to be shared by the GM in the manner of a D&D map-and-key.

Another thing about BW (and any play that allows the players to set the stakes) - whether or not an object is important is something the players decide, not the PCs. I mentioned upthread that Aedhros, after not killing the innkeeper due to Alicia's Persuasion, nevertheless stole his shoes so that he (Aedhros) would not have to go about barefoot. (Aedhros had no shoes because, in PC build, I couldn't afford them, give the other things I spent my resource points on.)

In D&D it would be unusual for ordinary shoes to be a significant focus of concern in play. But for Aedhros, with his Etharcal trait (so he knows what it is to live as Elven nobility) and his Instinct to repay hurt with hurt (and the innkeeper had hurt him, having swindled him and Alicia and tricking her into working in the kitchens), getting back at the innkeeper by killing him and stealing his shoes and his cashbox was an intense priority.

can a GM in Burning Wheel decide to place a spellbook (or any other object) that is designed to be interacted with by the PCs without the PCs have to declare that they want to use such an object? I'm guessing no, because you described my MotW idea as not being what you would like to play--which strongly suggests that this game is incompatible with mysteries, horror, twists, unknown assailants, or unforeseen circumstances, which is the type of game I like playing and running.

On horror, twists etc I refer you to the other thread where we discussed these things in the context of AW play; and also to my example of Thurgon discovering letters that reveal him to be the grandson of a demon summoning wizard, which involves a twist that is rather horrible. Alicia being swindled to work in the kitchens is an unforeseen circumstances. Etc. Burning Wheel (and AW, and I would suggest DW too) have no trouble with any of this.

But when you ask can the GM "decide to place a spellbook", what do you mean? I can place a real cup on a real saucer, but I can't literally place an imaginary cup on a real saucer, and of course if I imagine placing an imaginary cup on something well I'm not really placing anything on anthing.

If you mean, can the GM make notes about what things might be where, sure, why not? If you mean, does the GM refer to such notes as a step in action resolution, interposing between "intent and task" and "say 'yes' or roll the dice" a step along the lines of say no if your notes dictate it can't succeed then the answer is no. And if you mean, does the GM refer to such notes as a step in action resolution, as a reason to say 'yes' independently of what is at stake given the player-evinced concerns for their PC, and their intent in declaring the action, then the answer is also no.

This is an example, not really an explanation as to why things happen.

To be honest, I feel I've been pretty painstaking in my explanation of the processes of play. But you keep building in assumptions that I have not asserted and have repeatedly said are not part of those processes - eg you appear to keep assuming that the GM will have regard to a map, notes etc in resolving action declarations in ways that are independent of "intent and task", "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and "let it ride". See, eg, this post of yours:

In a case like this... because it's a wizard's tower. Maybe it's abandoned because the wizard was killed or imprisoned elsewhere and his tower hadn't been looted yet, rather than the wizard moved on and took all his stuff with them; obviously I don't know the specifics. Having a spellbook makes as much sense in such a location as having a chair or a cauldron or a lab where magical creatures are dissected. If the party went to a blacksmith's shop, it would make sense for there to be an anvil and iron ingots lying around, right? A spellbook wouldn't necessarily be out in the open like an anvil would be, but it makes sense that the GM would have decided that they existed ahead of time (or that spellbooks had been there at one point, but have since been removed).

BW may not be a game about Evard's spellbooks, but presumably it is a game where NPCs have lives outside of the PCs and therefore, their homes and places of work have things in them. At least, I should hope so!

In fact, the whole reason Evard's tower became a focus of play is this:

The rulebook, in its discussion of "the sacred and most holy role of the players", says this (Revised p 269; the identical text is in Gold too):

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test . . . Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

So at one stage, wanting to get things moving, Aramina's player declared (speaking as Aramina) "Isn't Evard's tower around here?" and then called for a test on Great Master-wise to confirm whether or not Aramina's recollection of the location of the tower of this particular great master was correct. The test succeeded, and so Aramina did indeed recall correctly! And in due course, once Thurgon was prepared to go there - he was worried, initially, that it might be a haven for Orcs (like Dol Guldur or Carn Dum in Middle Earth) - the two characters made the relatively short journey to it, where they found it abandoned. That was the GM's narration, as part of framing.

I regard this as relatively illustrative of how BW handles the introduction of setting elements: you can see the interplay of both player contributions (initial suggestions, which all are obliged to take up if the relevant check succeeds) and GM contributions (via framing, or failure narration - in AW/PbtA parlance these would be soft and hard moves).

Wait, hang on--your ability to choose to act was hampered by a die roll?! That sounds... highly suspect

I don't know what "suspect" means here.

The rule in question is Steel. It is Burning Wheel's version of morale. The GM can call for a Steel check if (i) certain conditions are met (normally involving seeing horrible or unearthly things, or attempting to act in a ruthless or cold-blooded fashion), and (ii) if the GM wishes to. (If the player thinks a Steel check for their PC might be warranted, they are at liberty to suggest that to the GM, but it is the GM who ultimately decides if one is needed - on other words, the GM can always say "yes" ie the character is hardened and ruthless enough to withstand or to perform whatever it is that is at issue.)

When Aedhros attempted cold-blooded murder the GM called for a Steel check, and I failed and hence Aedhros hesitated, giving Alicia sufficient time to use her Persuasion spell to convince Aedhros not to perform the murder.

 

[bloodtide]

Blades in the Dark, for example,

Assuming what you are saying goes by the rules (I don't know), then "Blades" is NOT a "game with Wonderful Player Agency". A player can only do a tiny thing or two "with stress". So like maybe two a game? Then the WHOLE rest of the game is just a "Classic" where the GM has ALL the power and the GM "aggressively moves" the characters along THE GMs PLOT STORY, no matter what the players think or feel.

Another game I’ve run recently is Spire: The City Must Fall.

This game has a rule on a page of a book, but it's not like RPGs "need" this rule. After all, it's JUST the player making a VAGUE SUGGESTION with ZERO power and NO Agency....just like a classic RPG. So sure a player can say "whatever" and then the DM, with absoulte power, makes whatever they want based on the players couple words.

So the problem is that while both your examples are fine....they don't really fit. In the Classic Game, the GM has all the power...and the players just play their lone character. In the "other games" that keep getting mentioned....the player has full power or agency, equal or more then the GM. So in effect everyone is a GM is such a game.

Your tiny limited examples don't show that. Unless your saying doing one or two Extremely Limited Tiny Things in a game otherwise exactly like a classic All Powerful RPG, is "Enough".

My suggestion, if you care to keep the game going, would be to listen to them and give their comments some serious consideration. Talk to them about what they want from the game and then share what you want from the game, and find something that works for everyone.

Yea, except I can't really "meet in the middle" as it's impossible for me. I'm more of "I run this type of game, if you don't like it, we won't game".

 

[Lanefan]

Passing thought: if Aedhros, Thurgon and Aramina knew they'd be exposed to this much media coverage they'd have all demanded pay raises long ago...

 

[Micah Sweet]

In a case like this... because it's a wizard's tower. Maybe it's abandoned because the wizard was killed or imprisoned elsewhere and his tower hadn't been looted yet, rather than the wizard moved on and took all his stuff with them; obviously I don't know the specifics. Having a spellbook makes as much sense in such a location as having a chair or a cauldron or a lab where magical creatures are dissected. If the party went to a blacksmith's shop, it would make sense for there to be an anvil and iron ingots lying around, right? A spellbook wouldn't necessarily be out in the open like an anvil would be, but it makes sense that the GM would have decided that they existed ahead of time (or that spellbooks had been there at one point, but have since been removed).

BW may not be a game about Evard's spellbooks, but presumably it is a game where NPCs have lives outside of the PCs and therefore, their homes and places of work have things in them. At least, I should hope so!

On that last point, I'm actually not certain BW is a game where anything has existence outside of the PCs. It doesn't seem to be thst kind of game.

 

[Enrahim2]

Are you able to say what you think is better about RPGing in which the players establish dramatic needs for their PCs by drawing on the setting material authored by the GM, rather than by just brining them to the table themselves.

I can step in here. The consistency, direction and richness of a single vision.

Let me exemplify with the last full campaign I played with as a player. The GM pitch was that we were playing in a country at war, and would start out having been forcefully drafted.

I based on this prompt created a fanatic war-priest very eager to serve in the war.

Now, the first scene turned out to be "your unit is designated on a suicide mission to distract the enemy, however here is the means to escape before certain doom". It was very clear that this was a preplanned concept by the DM, not taking into account anything about our characters. However as I had based my character's motivation based on the pitch, this lead to something that for me was a scene with enormous dramatic tension. Our escape was a forgone conclusion, but the means to get there was far from not settled. For instance the in group conflict over if we should release the officer we had taken as hostage or not.

But hold on a minute you might say. The problem here is that there shouldn't have been a scene with a set outcome in the first place. Rather there should have been a scene adessing some player flagged issue with the players providing what would be natural outs.

However for this game I really wouldn't have liked this. You see, the GM had a vision. The structure was something like this: Introduce the army, get a mcGuffin, defeat a dragon in the capital gaining the army's favor, bring the army, dragon and McGuffin into the final scene.

And that final scene is something I would not have missed for anything in the world. You see, I had been DMing a campaign for that group for more than a year. I had prepared a climactic end scenario for that campaign in connection to me having to move to a different town. Unfortunately I had misestimated the time required, so we had to end the last session before they managed to defeat the giant (think 10 floor building) statue avatar of the god of madness. I invited them to try to suggest ways they would try to defeat it on online chat, but there was seemingly no takers.

Guess what the last scene was? It turned out that the campaign I was playing in was basically a one year long elaborate setup for a mean to defeat that giant statue! The feeling when in that last session when the DM described the giant head appearing over the horizon was indescribable. I had earlier in the session invested all the capital I could muster as a player to prevent the army from bringing the mcGuffin to the scene. Guess if I was happy I was playing a game where the GM was empowered to fully overrule my pleas as a player in that regard?

Was it a railroad? I really wouldn't say so. I for instance don't think the DM ever planned on some of our group freeing the dragon we had defeated, captured and handed over to the King. But he could easily let that happen as it didn't hurt the overall vision. There was a destination, but there was clearly several interesting ways to get there.

And all along the campaign, my character's backstory, with it's tension between his wishes to go to war, loyalty to the group vs the country and his state as somewhat unvoluntary deserter felt highly relevant (except for in the mcGuffin dungeon). If I had not made something lining up with what I knew about the GMs authorship, I would likely have been in a situation where any background I came up with independently would be much less relevant.

Colaborative storytelling can be fun. Experiencing a strong consistent vision can also be fun. Saying that one of those funs are in any way better than the other make no sense to me. They are different experiences. My life would have been less rich if I only had gotten to experience one of them.