D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[CreamCloud0]

sigh, wishing i could let myself leave this thread be but i keep opening it up every time i see it's recieved new replies, i don't feel like much of anything has been achieved in how ever many tens of pages this conversation has gone on for now, people are just talking past each other and repeating the same points over and over because the games and styles of play they prefer work on fundamentally different structures and principles.

 

[Faolyn]

Leaving aside the terminological morass, the whole object of narrativist play is to address these kinds of issues like Aramina's belief about getting spellbooks. So, simply letting the GM decide by some sort of pregeneration (or on-the-fly generation) of content about these spell books is tantamount to a GM authored story! It goes something like "Aramina wants spell books, but she cannot find any in Evard's Tower, or vault X, or the Hulamic Academy Library, or..." and they're to be found only in esoteric place Z. Its just a fetch quest. Sure, it involves a player constructed belief, but how it plays out is entirely the GM's story. Yeah, the player of Aramina can give up and write a new belief.

I know its hard for people who have spent their whole lives being GMs that wrote every stitch of fiction in the game, but there's a vitality to play in which A) nobody knows what will happen, and B) players are making decisions like "maybe there are spell books in this abandoned wizard's tower."

So "They're about to enter a wizard's tower. There are spellbooks there" is... too much?

I kind of have to wonder why Burning Wheel isn't a GMless game. Why not have everyone make a character and then let the other players adjudicate any questions that come up, such as "did Thurgon find any spellbooks when he searched?" That would make a whole lot more sense for the style of game you're talking about.

 

[Faolyn]

sigh, wishing i could let myself leave this thread be but i keep opening it up every time i see it's recieved new replies, i don't feel like much of anything has been achieved in how ever many tens of pages this conversation has gone on for now, people are just talking past each other and repeating the same points over and over because the games and styles of play they prefer play and work on fundamentally different levels.

You can click on "Unwatch," you know.

 

[pemerton]

I read "outside of the PCs" as intrinsically placing the frame of reference in their world and not ours. To them, it does (can?) exist, in the normal meaning of the word.

But this is a trivial property of all RPG worlds except perhaps Toon. Which is why, as I said, @Micah Sweet's claim about BW becomes trivially false on this reading.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You can click on "Unwatch," you know.

i don't have it on watch, and even if i did it wouldn't help as it's just my own inherent curiosity that keeps bringing me back.

 

[pemerton]

That is not what jargon means. If you don't agree with what I wrote, say that. This just sounds like trying to score rhetorical points. Are we working towards understanding, or are we trying to win?

For my part, I feel that every time I say something using a metaphor or a technical term or an unfamiliar piece of vocabulary you and other posters criticise me for it. But you use expressions in very non-literal or more-or-less technical ways and just expect other posters to work out what you mean.

I'm prepared to make the effort to work out what you mean, but then would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I read "outside of the PCs" as intrinsically placing the frame of reference in their world and not ours. To them, it does (can?) exist, in the normal meaning of the word.

I don't think this is really different for either type of game. The characters certainly know what they know of the world. It "exists" to them in both games. We as players may know some or none of what the characters know until it becomes relevant to play.

The difference is in what the GM knows prior to play.

That is not what jargon means. If you don't agree with what I wrote, say that. This just sounds like trying to score rhetorical points. Are we working towards understanding, or are we trying to win?

I was trying to help you understand why someone could see what you said as jargon. It's a quicker way of conveying the idea you were trying to convey.

I don't agree with the assessment, no, mostly for the reason I mention above to Xamnam.

 

[pemerton]

I realized the monster's lair would likely contain his "spellbooks"/ritual info because it would be logical. I realized this before the players went in (which they didn't do), and I didn't decide that an NPC would get their hands on them until much later. I didn't map out the lair or plan out every detail before I ran the game. I only know that the adventure said that this is where the monster rested and didn't come up with any other details.

But apparently, even that much is against what pemerton looks for in a game and may be too much of the GM creating details for them.

You're describing a process of play here - the GM making decisions about what is or isn't possible within the scope of various action declarations (like "We search for spellbooks") prior to any of those actions being declared - which is simply not part of Burning Wheel.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, but so what? People have dropped all kinds of criticisms at all kinds of games in this thread. If someone says something negative about a game I like, I explain why I think they're wrong, or why there are other elements that make up for it. I don't tell them they need to stop saying what they're saying.

Look at what @bloodtide is saying. Is anyone getting nearly as worked up about those views?

Why is there a difference, do you think?

Because there's potentially some truth to what @pemerton is saying. And people don't want to face that, so instead they're trying to simply shut it down.

Just play devil's advocate for a bit... imagine there's something of merit there, that the criticism has at least a modicum of validity. Be harsh on trad gaming, either your own or someone else's. Examine play through that harsher lens and see what it says.

This difference is simple. One comes off as a shock jock and the other is serious. The one that is serious is more much offensive when it comes to a pejorative misportrayal of a major playstyle. I don't get offended by shock jocks on the radio(not that I listen to them) either.

 

[Xamnam]

But this is a trivial property of all RPG worlds except perhaps Toon. Which is why, as I said, @Micah Sweet's claim about BW becomes trivially false on this reading.

Sheer existence, maybe, but scope thereof is a fair question, and I think the heart of their statement.