D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

This is what was given as a game example:

1.Player wants something at random.
2.Player makes 'circle check' (or whatever game rule)
3.GM does whatever the player wants

I would leave off the 'at random'.

1. "I attack the orc!"
2. "I hit AC21 and my longsword does 9 damage."
3. The DM subtracts 9 from the orc's hit points.

There's a few key differences here.
1. The player didn't declare 'I hit the Orc'. He declared 'I attack the Orc'. The player in his own word choices exhibits a clear understanding that he doesn't declare whether he hits the orc regardless of his desire. Instead he invokes 'attack' - a mechanic that specifically gives him a chance of hitting the orc.

2. The player really desires to have rolled for max damage, or better yet that his blow kill the Orc. In D&D the player isn't declaring declaring any thing he wants. In D&D the player declaring 'attack' is invoking a mechanic to get a specific and defined mechanical effect he desires. Circles is a defined mechanic - but it's not specific - the player can invoke the circles mechanic for just about anything so long as a very low plausibility bar is cleared.

3. The d&d ‘attack’ incorporates the plausibility of your PC hitting into its framework (attacks vs AC). The circles mechanic does not factor plausibility into its resolution framework at all as far as I can tell?

A player does not just make a Circles check to get X to happen. They must declare a credible action that could possibly result in say finding their brother in the city based on established fiction about their brother and the city.

I agree plausibility is technically required for circles - but in many of the examples I see for Circles - plausibility is such a minimum constraint that it might as well be non-existent.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would leave off the 'at random'.

There's a few key differences here.
1. The player didn't declare 'I hit the Orc'. He declared 'I attack the Orc'. The player in his own word choices exhibits a clear understanding that he doesn't declare whether he hits the orc regardless of his desire. Instead he invokes 'attack' - a mechanic that specifically gives him a chance of hitting the orc.

2. The player really desires to have rolled for max damage, or better yet that his blow kill the Orc. In D&D the player isn't declaring declaring any thing he wants. In D&D the player declaring 'attack' is invoking a mechanic to get a specific and defined mechanical effect he desires. Circles is a defined mechanic - but it's not specific - the player can invoke the circles mechanic for just about anything so long as a very low plausibility bar is cleared.

3. The d&d ‘attack’ incorporates the plausibility of your PC hitting into its framework (attacks vs AC). The circles mechanic does not factor plausibility into its resolution framework at all as far as I can tell?

I don't know much of anything about Burning Wheel, but I can say right now that plausibility is absolutely a factor. Having just now done a little bit of investigation, as part of doing a Circles check, the player must explain both how ("task") and why ("intent"). It seems quite clear that an insincere fig-leaf excuse for the "task" part would be violating the rules.

This is a quote from a blogpost describing the strengths (and some criticisms) of Burning Wheel:

((Radically) Transparent) Intent, Task, and Consequence: To do literally anything in the game, you need to make your intent — that is, the actual desired result of your efforts — abundantly clear to the table. You can’t play close to the vest, you can’t try to “beat” another player or the GM through fictional positioning trickery. Then, the GM tells you what task (skill) you need to roll to achieve that intent. Finally, the GM is obligated to tell you before you roll what the consequence of failure is. But get this: the player isn’t obligated to make that roll. They have to consent to it. The GM can always offer a different task, but can also change the difficulty and/or the consequence. It’s very clear, above-board negotiation. Lots of players get tripped up on this transparency mandate, and it’s Burning Wheel’s first and most powerful lesson.

Both the player and the GM must be "radically transparent" here. They are required to be open and above-board about what they expect. An intent that is simply ludicrous or unacceptable does not fit within this process of play.

I agree plausibility is technically required for circles - but in many of the examples I see for Circles - plausibility is such a minimum constraint that it might as well be non-existent.

The above would seem to contradict this position. If "radically transparent intent" is a hard requirement, I can't see how an implausible request could ever fly. It would be obvious from the outset.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know much of anything about Burning Wheel, but I can say right now that plausibility is absolutely a factor. Having just now done a little bit of investigation, as part of doing a Circles check, the player must explain both how ("task") and why ("intent"). It seems quite clear that an insincere fig-leaf excuse for the "task" part would be violating the rules.

This is a quote from a blogpost describing the strengths (and some criticisms) of Burning Wheel:

Both the player and the GM must be "radically transparent" here. They are required to be open and above-board about what they expect. An intent that is simply ludicrous or unacceptable does not fit within this process of play.


The above would seem to contradict this position. If "radically transparent intent" is a hard requirement, I can't see how an implausible request could ever fly. It would be obvious from the outset.

Does it require "radically transparent intent" in the book? I don't hold blog posts as binding.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know much of anything about Burning Wheel, but I can say right now that plausibility is absolutely a factor. Having just now done a little bit of investigation, as part of doing a Circles check, the player must explain both how ("task") and why ("intent"). It seems quite clear that an insincere fig-leaf excuse for the "task" part would be violating the rules.

This is a quote from a blogpost describing the strengths (and some criticisms) of Burning Wheel:

Both the player and the GM must be "radically transparent" here. They are required to be open and above-board about what they expect. An intent that is simply ludicrous or unacceptable does not fit within this process of play.


The above would seem to contradict this position. If "radically transparent intent" is a hard requirement, I can't see how an implausible request could ever fly. It would be obvious from the outset.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. I agreed plausibility was required (though I did question the degree required). See my reply in that post to @Campbell.

What I was talking about where you started responding was about plausibility affecting the chance for success like the attack vs AC test. (Attack vs AC is for determining the plausibility of you hitting). Circles as far as I can tell doesn’t have plausibility factor into it in this way. You have the same starting chance for circles to succeed no matter whether it’s very likely or just kind of unlikely.

I’ll talk some about your radical transparency in another post.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Does it require "radically transparent intent" in the book? I don't hold blog posts as binding.

To the best of my knowledge, it does not.

But it does, very expressly, say that Intent (what the player wishes to do) is essential--and that some Tasks (how the character will do that thing) are simply not acceptable. E.g., "I kill him!" or "I convince him!" are given as explicit examples of "inappropriate" Tasks; those are instead intents, the desire the player wishes to fulfill. The means of fulfilling the Intent cannot be neglected.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. I agreed plausibility was required (though I did question the degree required). See my reply in that post to @Campbell.

What I was talking about where you started responding was about plausibility affecting the chance for success like the attack vs AC test. (Attack vs AC is for determining the plausibility of you hitting). Circles as far as I can tell doesn’t have plausibility factor into it in this way. You have the same starting chance for circles to succeed no matter whether it’s very likely or just kind of unlikely.

Well, from what I'm seeing, Burning Wheel Gold (not sure how that differs from Burning Wheel, unadorned) has "Obstacle" as a thing, which varies based on the details of the situation. If you precisely meet the Obstacle value when you roll, you fulfill your intent and nothing more, more or less. If you exceed the "Ob" value, you can get nice things on top of it. And, likewise, if you fail to meet the "Ob" value, your intent does not come to pass--but there is at least advice that the GM should consider the degree of failure (e.g., you may meet someone who could do what you want, but they dislike you for some reason--but since you only missed the "Ob" value by merely 1, they're merely going to charge you out the nose or otherwise make your life difficult, not actively try to oppose or hinder you.)

I’ll talk some about your radical transparency in another post.

Roger.

 

[FrogReaver]

The Circles Subsystem of “Burning Wheel Gold”

This seems like a good walkthrough the circles mechanics for burning wheel gold. I assume that’s similar to burning wheel.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, from what I'm seeing, Burning Wheel Gold (not sure how that differs from Burning Wheel, unadorned) has "Obstacle" as a thing, which varies based on the details of the situation. If you precisely meet the Obstacle value when you roll, you fulfill your intent and nothing more, more or less. If you exceed the "Ob" value, you can get nice things on top of it. And, likewise, if you fail to meet the "Ob" value, your intent does not come to pass--but there is at least advice that the GM should consider the degree of failure (e.g., you may meet someone who could do what you want, but they dislike you for some reason--but since you only missed the "Ob" value by merely 1, they're merely going to charge you out the nose or otherwise make your life difficult, not actively try to oppose or hinder you.)

Setting Obstacle level seems to reflect taking into account varying fictional plausibility levels. So appears the mechanics do take that into account for determining chances of success.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is a quote from a blogpost describing the strengths (and some criticisms) of Burning Wheel:

Both the player and the GM must be "radically transparent" here. They are required to be open and above-board about what they expect. An intent that is simply ludicrous or unacceptable does not fit within this process of play.

I find the most telling part of that quote “fictional positioning trickery”.

I’m going to hold myself to circles for task and intent.

Task is going to involve not knowing where someone (or a general someone like a doctor is) is and going somewhere to find them. OR knowing where someone is but not having direct physical access to them - Say a Royal in his castle with guards.

In any event - task for circles seems self explanatory. Intent seems like it could be nearly anything.

For example - you might circles a doctor or apothecary in the town nearest you for a healing potion. Very plausible (requires a few assumptions about healing potions in the fictional a world, but mostly plausible for a fantasy fictional setting).

However, you might instead circles a farmer for a healing potion. Less plausible but not totally implausible. Is that an acceptable circles check? I’d not, why not?

 

[FrogReaver]

The Circles Subsystem of “Burning Wheel Gold”

This seems like a good walkthrough the circles mechanics for burning wheel gold. I assume that’s similar to burning wheel.

@Maxperson
This link looked like it had some juice for better explaining just where a GM could be played in burning wheel circles mechanics.

Most notably - player can shop around till he gets better than normal chances, since players don’t have to commit till they know the odds and what the consequence will be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find the most telling part of that quote “fictional positioning trickery”.

I’m going to hold myself to circles for task and intent.

Task is going to involve not knowing where someone (or a general someone like a doctor is) is and going somewhere to find them. OR knowing where someone is but not having direct physical access to them - Say a Royal in his castle with guards.

In any event - task for circles seems self explanatory. Intent seems like it could be nearly anything.

For example - you might circles a doctor or apothecary in the town nearest you for a healing potion. Very plausible (requires a few assumptions about healing potions in the fictional a world, but mostly plausible for a fantasy fictional setting).

However, you might instead circles a farmer for a healing potion. Less plausible but not totally implausible. Is that an acceptable circles check? I’d not, why not?

I can't answer your questions. I literally looked at Burning Wheel rules for the first time less than three hours ago.

@Maxperson
This link looked like it had some juice for better explaining just where a GM could be played in burning wheel circles mechanics.

Most notably - player can shop around till he gets better than normal chances, since players don’t have to commit till they know the odds and what the consequence will be.

Doesn't the transparency thing put the kibosh to it though? You can't pretend you want something you don't. You can't hide what you're looking for. The GM isn't being gamed because they literally KNOW what you're doing, and if you're "shopping around" for lower-difficulty stuff, they can see that. Kinda hard to exploit someone if they literally know what you're doing because it's completely public.