D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Aldarc]

I think of the GM's private imaginings as possible tools, and prep, for saying things that become part of the shared fiction. But it seems to me tautological that, being private, they are not shared, and hence are not elements of play per se.

Emphasis mine in bold. One personal issue that I do have with giving credence to the idea that there is an existence outside of the PCs that is within the GM's notes/brain/prep is its mutability. The GM's notes are subject to change and thereby the existence of a Thing is subject to change. Its only when the Thing is introduced into the fiction that it becomes "concrete" in the fiction as far as everyone at the table is concerned.

Let's say, for example, that the GM has the idea that Evard's book is in a hidden drawer of a desk in Room A. Is that book there if the PCs don't discover it? Some people would say that it is. However, the GM then later decides that the undiscovered Evard's book is now in the treasure hoard found in Room B, does Evard's book in Room A still exist?

We may even make similar case studies involving other things that exist in the world, including the back stories of Evil Overlords. The GM may change the Evil Overlord's back story or nature in response to player engagement cues or other personal whims. Until it's discovered or enters the fiction, how much concrete "existence" can we say that it has outside of the PCs?

I understand that for some GMs here, this would be a breach of play or even constitute railroading, particularly if the GM wanted the players to find the book. However, I don't think that this sort of behavior is out of the norm for GMing practices in Traditional Play.

People can talk of "quantum ogres" all they like, but it seems like to me that there is a certain "quantum" element to all things that are not yet introduced into the game fiction that is rooted in the mutability of possibilities. It's really only a question of who or how these intangible things are introduced into the game fiction.

 

[Faolyn]

Can you please explain what you mean by this. By that I mean- who are you envisaging "deciding" that there are spellbooks in the tower? How does that manifest in play? What play procedure are you envisaging?

The hypothetical GM, of course.

It's a wizard's tower, it's logical that there would be spellbooks, even if it's just one that got left behind during the move. Or potentially placed there as the bait of a trap.

To me, it seems that you do not understand the Burning Wheel process of play - as per the earlier part of this post. So I'm not sure on what basis your make confident assertions about what would or wouldn't make sense for the game.

You're not doing a very good job of explaining it. You're giving examples but not explaining them, and are assuming we understand the game as well as you do.

In addition, this from Vincent Baker seems relevant:

In our co-GMed Ars Magica game, each of us is responsible for orchestrating conflict for the others, which works but isn't radical wrt GM doage-away-with. It amounts to when Emily's character's conflicts climax explosively and set off Meg's character's conflicts, which also climax explosively, in a great kickin' season finale last autumn, I'm the GM. GM-swapping, in other words, isn't the same as GM-sharing.​

Yes, a co-GMed game... which is very different than a typical game with a single GM. Your descriptions of BW make it so that the GM does nothing but react. You might as well use an AI for that.

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).

Sure, lots of games are like that. I've played and GMed Fate; I've GMed MotW. BW is not unique in that aspect.

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.

No, they're not. But you see to say that they're actually anathema to play, that they go against the spirit of BW or what makes a good game for you.

In D&D it would be unusual for ordinary shoes to be a significant focus of concern in play.

Depends on the character.

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.

Like I said, depends on the character.

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.

I'm not going to read through a huge thread to find your thoughts on a completely different game.

Also, I'm going to guess by your answer that no, BW can't do horror well. Everything you've described is stuff relating only to the characters. There's apparently no ability to do a slow build up and ratchet up the tension. I wouldn't be able to do the MotW Mystery I'm working on now, involving fetches from a GIger-esque biomechanical nightmare world that exists behind mirrors and who seek to increase their numbers by growing new fetches out of stolen organs.

It sounds like BW is great for interpersonal drama set against a medieval fantasy backdrop, but not for my preferred game.

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.

OK, now you're being deliberately obnoxious here, because you know darn well what I'm talking about.

Unless you are saying that Burning Wheel is actually a LARP, of course.

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.

So... it's OK to make notes, as long as you pretend they don't exist. Gotcha.

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.)

While I can understand a Fear check quite easily, since the source of the fear is coming from an external source, I find it quite bizarre and overreaching to require a Steel check for the PC attempting to do something the GM feels is too "ruthless," especially when a "are you sure about that?" would do. That is definitely railroading to me! This is no different than the example of bad GMing I described earlier, where a GM might tell a person they don't feel like digging a hole.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I didn't say "precise location." I said "existence."

My apologies for the misreading. Thinking about it, I don't think my answer changes meaningfully. Unless the game's situation is about a particular set of spellbooks or a player's beliefs touch upon them, their existence isn't relevant until a player cares about it enough to bring it up during play.

 

[pemerton]

@Enrahim2

You may know that Torchbearer is a cousin of Burning Wheel, written by the same designers and using many (not all) of the same techniques and procedures of play.

I have had my Torchbearer actual plays called out for praise and attention by both Luke Crane and Thor Olavsrud. I say this not to boast, but to make the point that I think I have a reasonably solid working knowledge of this familyof game systems.

And I make that point because it underpins the following one: your account of Burning Wheel play is not correct. I am not "latching onto" an "exploit". The purpose of Wises checks, Circles checks and the like is crystal clear, and is discussed in more detail in the Adventure Burner (reprinted in the Codex).

Trying to argue that Burning Wheel is really just a D&D variant with a metacurrency bolted on - as if Luke Crane had never been a prominent participant at The Forge, as if the rulebook does not centre "Vincent's admonition" to "say 'yes' or roll the dice", as if Luke and Thor were not prominent interlocutors on Vincent Baker's "anyway" blog, etc, is ridiculous.

 

[pemerton]

By scope, I mean how much of/to what degree the world these characters inhabit has facts about it that are known to one or more of the players, and, in the specific context of what Micah was asking, holding those in contrast to things that are decided in/during/as a result of active play, be they by mechanical resolution or not.

This isn't limited to a GM's imagination, it could be things discussed by the participants in advance, or decided by a player as elements of their character, or pulled in from source material, depending on the nature of the game. These facts can be either secret or public (though as you note in a later post, private information has the problem of being potentially non-actionable), and likewise, important or negligible.

Burning Wheel has discussion of how to establish the session, the "big picture", etc. The Adventure Burner (reprinted in the Codex) elaborates on this.

Of course this is a group thing.

I had also hoped that my example of Thurgon, with his family and his knighly order; and of Aedhros, with his spouse and his hatred of his father in law; would have illustrated how the players are profoundly involved in establishing setting elements as part of the process of PC build.

Now I think the difference between things that are shared and things that are private are pretty fundamental in a game of shared imagination. So when you say "one or more" as if that's a trivial disjunction, it strikes me as utterly fundamental.

Anyone can imagine stuff on their own whenever they want. The whole point of RPGing, at least as I experience it, is to participate in shared imagining.

 

[Campbell]

It is the duty of a Burning Wheel GM to frame player characters into situations/scenes that place their defined Beliefs into question. The establishment of dynamic situations, creation of consequences, shifting the spotlight between different characters et al requires an active and skilled GM. It is not the same skill set as a world builder / referee / adventure designer, but it is at least as active and vibrant part of play.

That a game defines the GM's role and responsibility differently does not mean that they are not substantial or require an incredible amount of creativity.

 

[Enrahim2]

@Enrahim2

You may know that Torchbearer is a cousin of Burning Wheel, written by the same designers and using many (not all) of the same techniques and procedures of play.

I have had my Torchbearer actual plays called out for praise and attention by both Luke Crane and Thor Olavsrud. I say this not to boast, but to make the point that I think I have a reasonably solid working knowledge of this familyof game systems.

And I make that point because it underpins the following one: your account of Burning Wheel play is not correct. I am not "latching onto" an "exploit". The purpose of Wises checks, Circles checks and the like is crystal clear, and is discussed in more detail in the Adventure Burner (reprinted in the Codex).

Trying to argue that Burning Wheel is really just a D&D variant with a metacurrency bolted on - as if Luke Crane had never been a prominent participant at The Forge, as if the rulebook does not centre "Vincent's admonition" to "say 'yes' or roll the dice", as if Luke and Thor were not prominent interlocutors on Vincent Baker's "anyway" blog, etc, is ridiculous.

Thank you! You point to some critical flaws in my communication. I make it seem like players picked up the game, found a way to use it that it was not intended for, and hence we have a gang of people playing the game in a completely unintended way, with the players having more power than ever intended.

This was bad from my side, as my actual stance is far from it. I think the genius of Luke Crane, as a result of his involvement in the forge has designed a mechanics that make players trying to play the game well play the game as intended - even without having to read anything but the mechanics! I was trying to set out how someone coming from a D&D background could see BW, discover something that appeared "exploitable", and as a natural consequence would lead them to play the game the way intended, without having to rely on any other outside guidance. The outside sources you point to simply confirms that the game is working as intended (and might help some players "get it" quicker)

 

[Manbearcat]

This is interesting. Suppose the players want to play a traditional style game. They want to explore the world and have it revealed to them by the DM as they go. They want to explore dungeons that they didn't help bring into being. And so on. Wouldn't getting into a game like that give them a lot of say over what the game is about since it chases what the players are interested in?

It seems to me that a traditional player in a game of @pemerton's style would have little say and it would not chase what that player is interested in, just like traditional play doesn't give Pemerton what he is interested in giving him little say in a game of that style.

Similar to the above, if the player wants to play in a traditional style game, then he is getting his say by having the PC knowledge figured out in traditional manner.

Same as above.

It seems to me that it really is one thing, Playstyle preference. If you are playing a game that runs the style of your preference, you have a lot of say. If you are playing a game that is of the other playstyle, then you don't have a lot of say.

Its really not about preference Max. "Say" is an objective reality that we observe all the time in our daily lives and we onboard it in our relationships. We evaluate it and the implications of it consistently. In some cases, not enough say will feel like there is insufficient reciprocation. In other cases, too much say will feel like we're burdened beyond what we're willing to take on. In some cases, a person who has say beyond their ability to cognitively manage will cause a net loss in efficiency or functionality in whatever endeavor they're taking on. In some other cases, folks thrive when they're forced to take on a considerable burden of say. Say is an organizing pillar of social systems both big and small.

You and your partner go on vacation and they choose where you're going, what you're doing, your daily calendar sequence, your hotel, where you eat. They basically have all the say. Hey, maybe you want that. For some couples, that is the platonic ideal. One person has all the say and the other is happily along for the ride. But that doesn't change the reality that one person has all the say and the other has no say. Then you can contrast that with a happy medium of say. You come together on where you're going. One person chooses the hotel. Another chooses where you're eating on this day while the other chooses the next day. You trade off choosing activities. Etc, etc. The matrix of say has changed (and those involved or those observing are certainly aware of this).

Here are two of the most easy and straightforward autobiographical ones I can think of in TTRPGs (which, my guess is that many people have similar anecdotes). It is the very first two that I engaged with in the hobby. When I started running Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawls with Moldvay Basic I was 7. Thrust right into it. I was ok. Certainly not good. Not terrible. Just ok-ish. Some of the dungeons in their totality and some of the dungeon micro-decisions I would design weren't good; like which corridors to choose and which to evade...like how to effectively deploy resources throughout the life of the delve. Sometimes, I wouldn't appropriately (subtly and deftly) telegraph threats or sometimes I wouldn't devise dynamically different gamestate changes if you executed this decision (or these sets of decisions) vs that decision (or those sets). Sometimes corridors and/or the navigation of forks were lame and limp. Sometimes the whole crawl just didn't have nearly enough input by the players (because my design of the dungeon wasn't dynamic enough or wasn't executed well enough in the running of it such that their play of it mattered enough). I also didn't quite have enough good understanding of how to theme dungeons (I was a little guy so I would repeat themes as my repository of thematic touchstones wasn't terribly deep). One dungeon would feel incredible and super fun and rewarding in the running of it, in the feel of the navigation of it by the players...another...not so much. I reflected a whole lot, I talked to my buddies a whole lot, and worked at my craft. By probably 9 or so I would reliably put out good dungeons with dynamic decision-points, compelling and divergent strategic throughlines, and diversity in themes.

Players' say increased as I sucked less in scenario design and in execution of my dungeons because their individual choices mattered more, the frequency of choice mattering increased dramatically, the intersection of choices mattered more (whether that be a sequence or these few big choices being extremely consequential to these other choices some...say...8 decision-points later), and their totality (on a per delve basis) of choices mattered. My own say (in devising crawls and running them) at 9 years old, in contrast with the 7 year old who started devising dungeons and running them, had increased in proportion to the increase of my technical skill, my cognitive space expansion on multiple axes, and my understanding of genre/theme.

The next thing?

Ok, well I'm devising all of these dungeons with no input from them. This was total proto-play for us. We're little (well, I am...they were like 10-12). I barely know what I'm doing. So its basically just "Dugeon of the Week" stype stuff. No town. No interaction with locals. No menu of dungeons. So that is what changed next. I worked on the fundamentals of getting good at dungeons...once I got good enough at that, I focused on building out a little town as home base that we could free play in. They'd sell their stuff there and then we would free-play the question of "ok what is going to be our next dungeon." This was pretty much all improv. I had some NPCs with names and some stuff that they did in the town. I'd do my best to roleplay them (it sucked...I'm sure...but whatever). But the net change of all of this was that the say the players suddenly had on our "Dungeon of the Week" increased. They would wander town, I'd make up a menu of types of dungeons as we free-played; cave or wizard tower or ruined temple, recover the x or save the y or purge the n, goblins or zombies or giant insects. And I'd make up some lore about a particular trap or puzzle or location/obstacle (etc) in the dungeon.

Then I'd spend the week making a dungeon up based on what had happened in our little town.

That was an increase in player's say.

---

Now whether or not people want say, want an increase in say, want a reduction in say is immaterial to whether or not that increase/reduction/statis of say exists or not. It would have been totally fine for those kids to say "you know what...this town thing isn't working...can you just hit us with a total surprise "Dungeon of the Week" again?" I would have probably been a little hurt (because I really enjoyed this town phase we were doing and how it put a challenge before me by parameterizing key components of a dungeon to build around...and I thought I was fairly good at doing this!), but if they didn't want to freeplay town and develop the parameters of our next dungeon together...that would be fine. Reduction in say for them...but totally fine. Alternatively, if, as I improved in dungeon design and in-situ execution and created more dynamic and more dynamically consequential (and therefore certainly more weighty and difficult in terms of demands on players) delve experiences, the players said "you know...this is getting too hard...can we do like what we did earlier...we liked that better," then that would have been fine as well. This particular cohort of little kids didn't though (another group who wanted less say might have though). Because as their say increased by proxy of better delve design and scenario execution by me, they progressively enjoyed the experience of play more and more because their frequency of input and the magnitude of their input into the experience of each delve increased.

 

[CreamCloud0]

This is just wrong. The people who create the world are me and my friends. The subjects of those stories are Thurgon, Aramina, Aedhros, Alicia and othes, all of whom are purely imaginary.

This is just wrong. I, a person who participated in the process of establishing the content of the shared fiction, am not someone about whom the story is being told. Just in case there was any doubt, I am not Thurgon. He is purely imaginary.

you, as a player, control thurgon, everything thurgon does is because you declare it, functionally You. Are. Thurgon. every time you quibble over 'well actually me and my character are separate entities' is sidestepping answering the question you were actually asked

This is a very bizarre thing to say - it's like saying that, in D&D combat, I roll a d20 to see if reality indulges my character's desire to wound the Orc!

I think a far less stilted way of putting the point is this: the dice are rolled to see if the declared action succeeds, where success is defined by intent + task (in this case, task = I'm looking, and intent = for spellbooks).

The rules of the game did not permit anyone to unilaterally decide the answer to that question about Thurgon finding spellbooks. The rules required dice to be rolled: everyone has agreed that, on one result (success), they will make Thurgon finds spellbooks part of the shared fiction; on the other result (failure), they will make the adverse consequence that the GM narrates part of the shared fiction.

in DnD, you roll to see how well your character attacks the enemy, the dice represent your skill in taking an action but the action requires the orc to be there in the first place, you cannot say 'i desire to attack the orc' in an empty hall, roll a success, and an orc manifests out of the air for them to then hit because they rolled well edit: just in the same way you cannot say 'i search for spellbooks and find them if you roll well if they're not there to find in the first place, in DnD the act of looking for spellbooks is an entirely separate matter from if the spellbooks are actually in that location, because the world exists as more than raw grey potential, the rules of BW permits everyone and anyone who can look for the books the ability to make those books appear in the fiction in that place if they suceed on a dice roll,

 

[Micah Sweet]

You write as if the PCs are real, and as if parts of the setting inform future events

The setting is imaginary. It is real people in the real world who invent future events. In the course of doing so, they may imagine that those events are related to other imagined events that, in the fictional world, occurred at an earlier time.

And I take you to be positing that it is the GM who should do all this inventing and imagining.

Yeah, I do, because the point of my style of gaming is to create an imagined world, mostly as the GM, and then run that world in a way that feels as verisimilitudinous as possible. As a player, I want to play in a world like this. I don't want to invent parts of the fiction my PC couldn't possibly know, no matter what rule process allows or requires it. In fact, if the game does require it, I don't want to play that game, any more than you likely want to play a game where the GM creates an adventure and you participate in it. We want different things, and neither of us would be happy playing in the others' game. That's just how it is.