D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Aldarc]

I did no such thing. I pointed out how the difference between your game and other people's games might not be as big as you think.

Okay and now you are saying here that you hate Oofta’s dog?! WTF, man?!

 

[Maxperson]

Imagine the characters traveling to town. The GM narates how they are passing several farms that is abandoned. The players make a note of it, but decide they want to go to town before investigating further. They then arrive at town, and the GM narrates a gathering of beggars. The GM has the idea that the beggars should be connected to the abandoned farms, but fail to make that explicit. The player then indicate that the beggars are indeed circus professionals. (@AbdulAlhazred I believe even in PbtA games this could happen trough the answering of a less direct question than "who are the beggars?" like as an answer to "what do you do?" - "I recognize the beggars as my old circus friends and go over to greet them")

Such a move from the player side wouldn't obviously contradict anything explicitely established, but accepting it into the fiction would change the established fiction of the empty farms from a setting backdrop where the GM has a fair idea of what is going on to a mystery where none of the participants at the table have any good idea to what could be the answer.

This is how I would handle that situation.

DM: "On the way to the town you pass several farms, yet see not a single farmhand working the fields or tending the animals. The fields are overgrown with weeds."

Players: "That's very odd, but we need to get to town to reprovision and speak with the judge that will help Malory here with his problem."

DM: "As you approach town you notice a gathering of beggars at the gate.

Player of Malory: "Wait! I recognize them as my old circus friends and go over to greet them."

DM as beggar wearing curly orange wig, red ball for nose and clown shoes with holes in the toes: "Malory?! It has been forever since we've seen you! As you can see, we have fallen onto hard times. We came to this town because we heard that it was good to those with nothing to their name, but when we got here we found the town overrun with beggars. Many of them were farmers."

That preserves what the players have established and also establishes what the DM had in mind with the farm/beggar connection.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I laugh because I have to assume you're only pretending not to know what I'm talking about.

I think it’s a matter of making sure things are clear because a lot of posts seem to not make any distinction between the player and the character. And while yes we often discuss things at the table like we are the character (•I’m gonna stab this ogre”, etc.) when we’re talking about play, it can lead to confusion.

The “PCs describing the tower” for instance, or the “PCs determining what the tower looks like”… pretty sure these comments and similar ones are meant to be descriptions of what the players are doing, but it seems uncertain.

An analogy might be that the totality of a hockey game consists of much more than the actual three periods of play; and includes facility maintenance (e.g. if the plexiglass around the rink gets broken during play), player warmups, coaches' between-period team talks, injury treatment, and a whole bunch of other stuff that goes into what you end up seeing on the ice if you're in the crowd that night.

I remember seeing a zamboni rider as a kid and I said “whatcha doin’, mister?” And he answered “Playing hockey, you stupid kid!”

And I wept.

And every one of those strange things contained in the real world has an explanation for how and why it came to be, and there's no reason why this can't be true of imaginary worlds also.

Just because we in the real world and the players running characters in the imaginary one don't necessarily know those explanations doesn't mean those explanations don't exist; and IMO having those explanations* in place and ready to go should the players take steps to find them is the duty of the GM.

It’s not necessary, though. The GM doesn’t need to know the reasons any more than the players do. It can just be unknown.

Or, if the GM really feels the need for there to be a reason, they can simply craft one that makes sense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it’s a matter of making sure things are clear because a lot of posts seem to not make any distinction between the player and the character. And while yes we often discuss things at the table like we are the character (•I’m gonna stab this ogre”, etc.) when we’re talking about play, it can lead to confusion.

The “PCs describing the tower” for instance, or the “PCs determining what the tower looks like”… pretty sure these comments and similar ones are meant to be descriptions of what the players are doing, but it seems uncertain.


I remember seeing a zamboni rider as a kid and I said “whatcha doin’, mister?” And he answered “Playing hockey, you stupid kid!”

And I wept.



It’s not necessary, though. The GM doesn’t need to know the reasons any more than the players do. It can just be unknown.

Or, if the GM really feels the need for there to be a reason, they can simply craft one that makes sense.

As I've said above, the distinction between player and PC doesn't matter to me in play. At the table I don't want to do anything that isn't a result of my PCs experiences and actions, and within their power as a creature living in the setting, and that certainly includes authoring fiction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What determines these things in BW?

And you've played (A)D&D so you know what represents those things.

Do you understand his point? That the mechanics of D&D don't mandate any specific fiction?

I don't; the man literally said that if you brought elements into D&D that he didn't approve of (like firearms) then you weren't playing real AD&D.

I invite you to check out DMG p58 and again p112.

A very large percentage of gamers--perhaps the majority--refer to their character as I. I do this; I attack the monster; I pick the lock. Most of us do this for every game out there. "I landed on Go; give me $200."

Maybe you don't. Maybe nobody at your table does. But I'd say about 95% of the people I've gamed with over the last 30 years do refer to their characters as I. And that remaining 5% waffled between first and third person.

It's how most of us get into our character's heads, especially since it feels more natural than only describing your character in the third person. As a GM, I call players by their character's names, in order to maintain immersion.

But when you need to distinguish between the fiction and the play of the game at the table, then you DO need to make this distinction.

You're continuing to miss the point--which again is really weird for someone who has claimed to have played (A)D&D and should therefore know how non-BW games work.

The game world exists. It may be imaginary, but it exists for the duration of the game--just like the world of a novel or movie exists for however long you read the novel or watch the movie. The game world may not "exist" to answer the question about spellbooks, but spellbooks exist in the game, and therefore, people (specifically, the player whose PC is looking for them) want to know about them. For the shared fiction to even work, there needs to be an answer, and having a spellbook not exist in a place where they likely would, just because no players thought to ask about them, doesn't make sense.

No, YOU are missing the point! Game worlds DO NOT EXIST! They do not abide by ANY laws of any sort whatsoever, they are simply tools of our imagination to which no causal processes of any sort whatsoever can ever logically be attached, PERIOD. This is not some sort of 'philosophical point' or opinion. This is bare hard cold fact. Your notes about play, which include descriptions, essentially instructions, about what to imagine in order to play, and the ideas in the other people's heads when they do this imagining, etc. Those are real. When you say something at the table those words have actual causal effects, which may include changes in the state of the imaginations of the players. However, there CANNOT LOGICALLY BE any connection between one imaginary event and another, no causal link between them. No necessity that one thing follow from another. Without understanding this, you are simply not going to understand RPGs in any objective fashion!

Earlier, I asked you to describe an area, but you didn't. The PCs walk into the tower. What do you, as the GM, say? Do you describe it at all? Or do you require your players to describe it to you? Because if it's the latter then what is your purpose as GM in a game of Broken Wheel?

The GM presumably has many functions. One of them COULD be to describe things who's appearance and nature are not somehow otherwise constrained (IE by a rule or by some other process of play). Pacing is a significant function of GMs in many cases, as is the narration of consequences (and indeed their selection). All of this will undoubtedly include description. I find it telling that you cannot imagine a role for a GM outside of describing what he's decided the world looks like and contains!

Yes, the imaginary world does play a causal role at the table. The way you describe the world tells people how they should act in that world. If you describe a wizard's tower like this:

View attachment 285460

the players are very likely going act differently than if you describe it like this:

View attachment 285461

And if you don't describe it at all, you give nothing for the players to work off of and create a very boring setting.

Right, but to describe this process as elements 'in the game world' causing something, either something else in the game world, or some reaction in the player's minds, is at best an awkward way of saying "I said something, and it provoked the players to imagine and feel certain things." Isn't it clearer to make the actual links here? There's never, IMHO, any merit in obscuring real actual process in the world where inexorable laws and facts must actually be confronted. Placing those causes and effects in an imaginary game world and redescribing them in a different way simply serves to make them LESS clear, not more. When I talk about games and game design and game play process, I want to talk about real things, because those ultimately are all that actually matter and that I need take account of. My GOALS may be to effect a certain type of imagining, and of course we need that in mind, but to be effective one deals in means, and produces ends. Everything in the game world is ends.

 

[Campbell]

As I've said above, the distinction between player and PC doesn't matter to me in play. At the table I don't want to do anything that isn't a result of my PCs experiences and actions, and within their power as a creature living in the setting, and that certainly includes authoring fiction.

Sure. That's a fine preference, but can you see how using language that confuses the two makes it hard to properly communicate about other means of play in ways that do not make them seem absurd? That it colors the conversation in a way that it makes it much harder to reach actual clarity.

Particularly when it comes to the not-so-subtle implication that other forms of play are made of paper tigers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you understand his point? That the mechanics of D&D don't mandate any specific fiction?

I invite you to check out DMG p58 and again p112.

But when you need to distinguish between the fiction and the play of the game at the table, then you DO need to make this distinction.

No, YOU are missing the point! Game worlds DO NOT EXIST! They do not abide by ANY laws of any sort whatsoever, they are simply tools of our imagination to which no causal processes of any sort whatsoever can ever logically be attached, PERIOD. This is not some sort of 'philosophical point' or opinion. This is bare hard cold fact. Your notes about play, which include descriptions, essentially instructions, about what to imagine in order to play, and the ideas in the other people's heads when they do this imagining, etc. Those are real. When you say something at the table those words have actual causal effects, which may include changes in the state of the imaginations of the players. However, there CANNOT LOGICALLY BE any connection between one imaginary event and another, no causal link between them. No necessity that one thing follow from another. Without understanding this, you are simply not going to understand RPGs in any objective fashion!

The GM presumably has many functions. One of them COULD be to describe things who's appearance and nature are not somehow otherwise constrained (IE by a rule or by some other process of play). Pacing is a significant function of GMs in many cases, as is the narration of consequences (and indeed their selection). All of this will undoubtedly include description. I find it telling that you cannot imagine a role for a GM outside of describing what he's decided the world looks like and contains!

Right, but to describe this process as elements 'in the game world' causing something, either something else in the game world, or some reaction in the player's minds, is at best an awkward way of saying "I said something, and it provoked the players to imagine and feel certain things." Isn't it clearer to make the actual links here? There's never, IMHO, any merit in obscuring real actual process in the world where inexorable laws and facts must actually be confronted. Placing those causes and effects in an imaginary game world and redescribing them in a different way simply serves to make them LESS clear, not more. When I talk about games and game design and game play process, I want to talk about real things, because those ultimately are all that actually matter and that I need take account of. My GOALS may be to effect a certain type of imagining, and of course we need that in mind, but to be effective one deals in means, and produces ends. Everything in the game world is ends.

I thought @Faolyn was pretty clear on her points, and I don't see how your insistence that everyone in the discussion define terms and principles of conversation the way you do is helpful in the actual discussion we're having (at least not to everyone).

You still seem to be claiming the superiority of your point of view, rather than stating your opinion or requesting greater understanding.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. That's a fine preference, but can you see how using language that confuses the two makes it hard to properly communicate about other means of play in ways that do not make them absurd? That it colors the conversation in a way that it makes it much harder to reach actual clarity.

Particularly when it comes to the not-so-subtle implication that the some of us play sometimes is made of paper tigers.

Not really. I think everyone understands the various sides here well enough, they just don't agree with them, and that disagreement is leading those who hold to the disagreed upon perspective to assume people don't understand.

 

[Faolyn]

In Burning Wheel, the skill of an Orc combatant is represented by its weapon rating. Its luck is represented either by its roll of the die (if combat is being resolved via a Bloody Versus opposed check) or by the quality of the scripting for it (if the combat is being resolved via Fight!). For instance, and as an example of luck in Fight!: if I script Block for the Orc while my friend, playing the Orc's adversary, scripts Feint for the same action, then I got unlucky! (Because the Feint automatically defeats the Block and hence will go through unopposed, and my Orc might therefore be hosed.)

So basically like most other games out there, except for the one where combat involves trading harm (like PbtA games).

I gave an example of Aedhros attempting a cold-blooded murder. I don't know why you describe that as a normal activity. It doesn't seem that normal to me.

Normal, e.g., not caused by external interference, such as magical compulsion, a creature with a fear effect, etc. Was this character being forced to commit murder and the Steel check was basically a saving throw to allow them to resist?

I don't want to play in a game were the GM can say, "no, your character wouldn't do that." Even if you can attempt to resist it with a roll.

OK? They also refer to themselves in the first person too - like, if someone's die rolls off the table, and they say to the person sitting next to them "Could you pick up my die for me?", no one gets confused that that's an action declaration. This is no different from how many football fans refer to their team as "We", but they don't therefore get confused about who is actually on the field moving the ball around.

But I don't see how any of this stuff about first person usage relates to what I've been posting.

Really? You don't understand how you've been refusing to answer questions by saying "I'm not doing anything, it's my imaginary character who is doing imaginary things"?

Here is an example of the process of play for Burning Wheel.

<snip>​

Nowhere in the fiction that is created in this example of play do Aramina or Thurgon do anything strange: they remember things, meet old friends, travel places, meet new enemies, and (in Thurgon's case) explore a tower.

OK, so you're really making it sound like there really isn't much use for a GM in this game--you could get another player to do the descriptions and other "behind the screen" parts of the game, and have other players decide to bring in twists in order to "instigate something interesting."
Which is fine; nothing wrong with a GMless game. I'd play in it, if that were the case. But you're judging GM-led games by the standards of what is a GMless game in all but name when you were calling them railroady.

Where did I say this? I even discussed the possibility of the GM narrating the discover of trapped or cursed spellbooks. More generally, you've had many posts, from @Citizen Mane and me, telling you how, in the play of Burning Wheel, the question "Do I find any spellbooks" can be answered. This post also gave an extended example of play that dealt with the issue. It shows how the resolution does not depend upon the GM knowing whether or not the fiction contains spellbooks in the tower independently of action resolution.

You have repeatedly said that having the GM even come up with the idea that there could be spellbooks in the tower, prior to the players asking about them, is simply not allowable by BW standards. That's what you said when I talked about the rituals being in the monster's lair in my game, even though I hadn't placed them there until I was already well into the game.

(Which is weird, seeing how your game apparently took/takes place in Greyhawk, a thoroughly mapped setting where plenty of things exist regardless of the fiction.)

No it doesn't.

It certainly does suggest that. Even later on you say "If I didn't mention it, then you may well infer that the GM is always at liberty to establish (say) the colour of a building with no possibility as constraint. Which would be just as much a mistake as it would be in relation to spellbooks"

Which again makes me wonder why this isn't a GMless game to begin with.

If, via play - such as a Wises check - it has been established that the hall is crimson red, then the GM must honour that in their description.

See, I consider this really weird. In any other game, either the GM would describe the hall as red, or would ask a PC to describe it (if the PC was the one who had decided that this hall existed, or because the player is good at describing things), no rolls needed. Some games even allow the PCs to spend metacurrency to describe it if the description would include useful items in it (e.g., the hall contains magical weapons on display, or the console of the CCTV system). But it's weird to me to require the player/PC to make a check to establish a cosmetic change that can be experienced with the PCs' senses. You're making the system sound like it's built to play in a dream-realm, where the mind creates reality. Which would be quite cool, actually, if that were actually the case.

A couple of sessions ago, the PCs needed to get into the local National Park at night in order to track down a monster. One of the PCs is acquaintances with many of the park rangers, since they're all werewolves; this was established in the PC's backstory. I described the person they were meeting as Jake and that's he's only recently turned, and then asked the player to describe him. And now Jake has a physical appearance and is on the all-werewolf bowling team. No rolls necessary. Just imagination.

The causal role is being played by the description - an event that happens in the real world - not by the imaginary world, which is not a real thing and has no causal powers.

Right. So you're definitely just being like this so you can try to weasel out of saying things. "No, this isn't the case because it's imaginary!"

Yes, how you describe a thing determines how people react to it. It doesn't matter if that thing is real world-real or game-real.

I don't believe that I've ever used that phrase. But the reason I keep distinguishing the game participants from the fiction is because, without doing that, nothing sensible can be said about how the fiction is created. Like, no one tries to explain how the Sherlock Holmes books were written without beginning from a recognition that Holmes is imaginary, but Conan Doyle was a real person.

So what?

This whole thing is just a distraction and has no bearing on the fact that, for the purposes of gameplay, the world and NPCs in it are real, or that it's generally considered to be good for them to exist outside the actions of the PCs. You can try to keep using the word imaginary or pretend or whatever you want, but the fact is, if the only things that matter in the game are what the PCs do and experience, many--probably even most--gamers would consider that game to be flat and uninteresting.

If you have no trouble drawing this distinction, then why do you make posts about the PCs describing the game world when you seem to clearly mean the players, or about spellbooks not exisitng when you fairly clearly seem to be referring to as-yet-unauthored parts of the fiction?

Let me guess. You're the type of person that, when someone asks you, "can I do this thing," you respond with "I don't know, can you?"

Either that or you are the type of person who doesn't think about what people write.

Different from what? I was replying to a question about how a twist might occur, like finding out that your PC's grandfather was an evil wizard. What is that different from? What is the problem with indexing this sort of thing to failed checks? That's more-or-less how Apocalypse World does it too.

Different from everything else.

I still don't know what you mean by the GM "saying something". What context do you have in mind?

It might help if you tried to connect one thing I wrote to another thing I wrote. Then you might remember that I've been talking about how spellbooks would logically be in a wizard's tower, or how ritual material would logically be in the lair of a monster that used that ritual.

You have ideas that no doubt are very clear to you about when and what the GM might say in a typical RPGing context. As far as I can tell, they are not consistent with the GMing techniques appropriate to Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World. I have tried multiple times to explain how those games use different techniques that do not rely on making decisions about what happens next based on notes. But you seem not to want to take those explanations at face value. I'm struggling to work out what you are looking for, by way of explanation or even account of play.

Strangely, I've been running a PbtA game for eight sessions now, and my GMing techniques are quite consistent with it, with a slight margin of error for it being the first time anyone at my table has used the system. Maybe you didn't realize that Monster of the Week was a PbtA game and are assuming I was playing D&D.

However, you were judging people's GMing techniques which were appropriate for the games they were running by comparing it to what's apparently appropriate for BW, and declaring the non-BW games to be railroady. And that's not cool.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When you say "they provide the underlying explanation", you're just pointing to more fiction that the GM is imagining. The explanation, in the real world, for why the GM is telling the players some stuff about beggars is that the GM decided to tell the players some stuff about beggars.

Right, and this is why I want to have the distinction between player and character, and the understanding of the game world as a completely imagined construct in which no cause and effect relationship can exist between its elements (because no inexorable laws govern it) is so important to clarity.

For example, I've stated that 'simulation' is kind of a poor name for what we do when we construct imaginary causal relationships within the fiction. That is, it is NOT POSSIBLE that one imagined fact must lead to another specific imagined fact, and this is profoundly unlike the real world. So simulation can only be a desire, an agenda, and it isn't very plausible that this agenda is "every single event within the fiction is well-grounded in other events in the fiction, and thus inevitable." It could be that "the juxtaposition of these elements provides verisimilitude" (or some other trait, like adherence to some genre convention). This is why I always ask myself why as a GM I am framing something into a game, because there are very many possible reasons, and a lot of them end up being things I wasn't consciously aiming for!