How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

Eh. I don't really think there is much of a difference in practice. If a chracter is looking for their missing sister and it is then revealed that she was kidnapped by a mysterious cult, it doesn't much matter whetherThe GM came up with the idea of the cult before and then it occurred to them that the sister thing could be related to that, or whether the GM came up with the cult whilst thinking about the missing sister. If you integrate it well it will feel just as compelling regardless of which thought occurred in the GM's head first. I care much more about the end results than whether the GM arrived to those results by following the orthodox dogma.

I know that this is part of a parallel conversation. But I thought I would take this opportunity to say that, as described, this does not seem to me to be very player-driven. It seems more like the example from the 3E DMG of the GM using the desire to have Mialee raised as the "lure" for the wererat quest.

Now, if the mysterious cult is something that comes out of or responds or plays upon a player-authored priority, that's a different matter. But at that point, it obviously does matter when and how the GM is coming up with the idea of linking the cult to the sister.

I am not saying that all games need to be as wishy-washy about their premises than D&D, but I also feel that some of these indie darling games (and their fans) are so narrow and dogmatic about the correct way to play them that to me it feels uncomfortably constraining.

Is this you being disinterested and fair? Or mean-spirited?

In any event, Burning Wheel is no narrower in the sort of play it supports than 5e D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know that this is part of a parallel conversation. But I thought I would take this opportunity to say that, as described, this does not seem to me to be very player-driven. It seems more like the example from the 3E DMG of the GM using the desire to have Mialee raised as the "lure" for the wererat quest.

How? What would make it not so? Also note that a half sentence example I came up in a second probably doesn't accurately reflect the full complexity and nuance it would have in play.

Now, if the mysterious cult is something that comes out of or responds or plays upon a player-authored priority, that's a different matter. But at that point, it obviously does matter when and how the GM is coming up with the idea of linking the cult to the sister.

Why?

Is this you being disinterested and fair? Or mean-spirited?

Former.

In any event, Burning Wheel is no narrower in the sort of play it supports than 5e D&D.

That seems contradictory regarding what you have said about it. That is has GMing principles that demand it to be run in certain way, whilst 5e really doesn't. Whether this is a good or bad thing is matter of opinion, but that it is really isn't.

 

[Maxperson]

You don't think people that live in parts of the country where they still put hex signs on barns would understand the concept of a magic circle?

Why would they? Those hex signs that were posted right under the post I quoted don't look like a runic circle and don't function anywhere near the same. I also grew up in rural Michigan and nobody in the 7 years I lived there mentioned either magic circles or hex signs in my hearing.

 

[Maxperson]

Yup. Magic circles. You find similar kinds of things in the rest of the country, based on the folks that settled in those areas. The upper midwest had strong Nordic immigration and so you see folk magic of that sort.

The point is: this stuff isn't the purview of formal education, but tradition. Some rube from Hardbottle might not be able to read the runic circle but probably knows what it is.

That's precisely the issue. The debate is about some rube knowing exactly what the runic circle means, not just, "Hey, that's a runic circle." The latter not really being useful.

 

[Campbell]

@Crimson Longinus

There's a very large difference between content that makes character specific motivations, history and themes central to play and using these things to motivate a player to engage with adventures that might have a brief taste of these things but really asks them to take on the interests the GM expects them to take on. Generally, the wizard tower the GM hooks into the wizard character's backstory after the fact tend to be latter. At least that would be my personal concern. Is the GM interested in the players' contributions or simply using them to some other ends?

 

[Maxperson]

I don't accept your characterisation of, and apparent assertion of ownership of, the "D&D community".

I first played D&D in the early 1980s. I have GMed many hundreds, quite possibly thousands, of hours of D&D. My most recent long-running D&D game was a 7+ year, 1st to 30th level 4e D&D game. My most recent engagement with a D&D module has been my conversion of the T1 moathouse to Torchbearer 2e.

I am as much a member of the "D&D community" - if there is such a thing - as you are. I don't accept your description of my RPGing as an "outlier" against some supposed norm that you claim to speak on behalf of.

I mean, the numbers speak for themselves.

The Orr Group Industry Report Q4 2020: 8 Million Users Edition! - Roll20 Blog

Last quarter, Roll20 hit a remarkable landmark–we crossed 8 million users, a number that we couldn’t even imagine when the site originally launched. It’s an achievement for us as a site and a testament to our team’s hard work, but more than anything else, it’s an honor to have you here with us...

blog.roll20.net

 

[Corinnguard]

I don't accept your characterisation of, and apparent assertion of ownership of, the "D&D community".

For your information, I was replying to something @Lanefan said in #1314. You're free not to accept what I said about The Burning Wheel and D&D. As for the term, "D&D Community", I don't own it.

I am as much a member of the "D&D community" - if there is such a thing - as you are. I don't accept your description of my RPGing as an "outlier" against some supposed norm that you claim to speak on behalf of.

I didn't say that you weren't a member of the "D&D Community" either. You are overreacting to what I came across on Wikipedia about The Burning Wheel and assuming that I am dissing it. Before you even mentioned The Burning Wheel on this thread, I didn't even know it existed. As for the D&D being norm, it became the norm because it has had 50 years to become common knowledge. Even people who have never played D&D have heard of it.

This description is not entirely accurate. And in any event I don't need Wikipedia to explain this game to me. I am quite familiar with it. And I posted the key "how to play" text upthread - which is taken directly from the rulebook, and hence is more accurate than Wikipedia.

If you don't believe that Wikipedia's entry on The Burning Wheel is accurate, set up an account there and post what you consider to be a more accurate description.

I don't think it's true that the 5e D&D rulebooks encourage the GM to create problems and challenges that specifically probe and test the Beliefs and Instincts of the PCs. I mean, just to begin with, 5e PCs don't have Beliefs or Instincts as part of their build.

True, they don't have something like Beliefs and Instincts. But the RPG does allow you to choose personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws from it's list of character backgrounds. I certainly believe that they do encourage the GM to create problems and challenges for the players to overcome.

Upthread you've repeatedly talked about your D&D play involving playing through a GM-authored adventure. By definition, that sort of play cannot be doing the same thing as the BW GM is doing.

Are you absolutely sure? If you are confidant that a GM-authored adventure is not doing the same thing as the BW GM is doing, then my upthread reply to @Lanefan shouldn't have bothered you in the slightest. My reply was not an attack on you or The Burning Wheel. It was meant to be informative. Don't you want it to be more well-known?

You know, @Reynard had a pretty spot on assessment of you upthread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nobody really likes their preferences being referred to as an outlier (which I suspect is why @pemerton seems defensive), but sometimes they are, to the best demographic understanding we have anyway. Folks on this forum have certainly informed me that many of my gaming preferences make me an outlier. I'm actually ok with that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not struggle. But allocation of tasks. As a player, I'm not turning up primarily to learn what the GM has in mind. As a GM, I'm not turning up primarily looking to share a setting or an "adventure" with the players.

Primarily. But that doesn't mean those things cannot happen in the play at all.

I can't recall if you participated in the somewhat-recent thread where I quoted some text from Dogs in the Vineyard (pp 138-9):

Yes.

This is what I enjoy, as player and GM. The GM provides the situation, which is laden with relevant conflict; the players declare actions in response to it.

Yes, and believe it or not, that's broadly speaking what I prefer as well. I just do not think that this is really tied to exact procedures of handling dice mechanics or that occasional reflexive roll to gain information somehow destroys this.

In all genuine kindness, this is what I mean by dogmatic. To me your thinking is so all-or-nothing that I just cannot get it. Play can be primarily about certain things without it having to be about those things non-stop 100% of time or everything is ruined and we have forsake our sacred principles.

Who is the we? I mean, if the player asks "Do I recognise the statute" then they have declared an action for their PC, and the appropriate action resolution rule gets applied. But I am talking about a situation where the GM calls for a roll independent of the player declaring an action. In that context, who is the we?

I mean you snipped the second paragraph in which I illuminated further how we arrived at the situation. But in 5e it is always the GM who calls for rolls, though hopefully in such manner that it is usually obvious to the participants why they did so. But if it makes you feel better about this, think the player action declaration of entering the space in which they saw the subject of the knowledge roll to be the thing that triggered it. And in certain sense that is indeed what occurs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's precisely the issue. The debate is about some rube knowing exactly what the runic circle means, not just, "Hey, that's a runic circle." The latter not really being useful.

Not really. The debate... such as it is... was based on a sparse example provided by @pemerton of a dragon inside a magic circle.

I then stated that in such an instance, I'd share what the function of the circle was with my players. Really, it boils down to people not liking that I would share that information without gating it behind a check of some sort. That's really it.

It's nothing about rubes knowing or anything like that. That arose because I, perhaps naively, made a reference to the fact that we in our world have ideas what magic circles do, even though they're not real.

I probably should have foreseen this offhanded comment to end with people talking about how the average person in Michigan isn't up on Runology... silly me.