D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

Isn't Burning Wheel 'say yes or roll the dice'

Yes.

which is similar idea

No. I think I posted about this upthread.

The rule in 5e D&D, according to this from DnD Beyond, is "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

What principle does the GM use to decide if something is uncertain? I don't know if the rulebook suggests one (or more).

Here is the rule for "say 'yes' or roll the dice" from p 72 of BW Gold (available for free on DTRPG):

In his game, Dogs in the Vineyard, Vincent Baker articulates a convention of Burning Wheel so well that I’d rather use his words than my own. He says:

Every moment of play, roll dice or say “yes.”

If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.

Sooner or later - sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis - they’ ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.

Roll dice, or say “yes.”​

Vincent’s advice is perfect for Burning Wheel. Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with
the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice.

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome.​

This has to be read in conjunction with other fundamentals of the game, found on pp 9-11, 24-25, 30-31:

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . .

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.

Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities. The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book. . . .

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . . Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. What does your character do? A task should be easily linked to an ability: the Sword skill, the Research skill or the Health attribute. . . .

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . . .

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .​

So the GM's key job is to present the players with problems based on the players' priorities that are components of PC builds (alongside the familiar numerical ratings). So whether or not something is at stake is a function of those priorities. Not a function of the GM's judgement. It is ultimately the player who has the greatest authority to call for a test.

And it is player-declared intent - obviously and intimately connected to the stakes of a situation - that is key to action resolution: success on a test means intent is achieved; failure means that the intent does not come to pass.

So in Burning Wheel, the notion of uncertainty has no role to play. Rather, a situation or outcome becomes uncertain, in play, because it puts at stake something that matters by reference to a player's priorities for their PC. We know it is uncertain, in play, because the rules tell us to roll the dice. And in BW task is secondary - it tells us what skill(s) to use in the test, because these reflect the different sorts of things PCs can do; and it also determines the difficulty, because obstacles are established by reference to the "objective" difficulty of a particular task; - but task does not bear upon whether or not the dice need to be rolled. That is a function of stakes, which flow from the interaction of the way the scene is framed, and the intent of a player's action declaration.

So this has almost nothing in common with the 5e D&D heuristic, other than that both involve rolling dice sometimes but not always.

And that's before we even get to the possibility, inherent in the 5e D&D approach but not part of BW, that the GM might decide it is not uncertain because it will undoubtedly fail.

if don't feel anything at stake, say yes, otherwise roll the dice. But the DM may approach it differently as to whether a situation should be yes or not depending on nature of campaign/ how approaching it.

The notion of the GM feeling whether or not something is at stake, and on that basis deciding what is or is not uncertain, might be useful in 5e D&D. It has no work to do in GMing Burning Wheel, though.

 

[robertsconley]

Isn't Burning Wheel 'say yes or roll the dice' which is similar idea, if don't feel anything at stake, say yes, otherwise roll the dice. But the DM may approach it differently as to whether a situation should be yes or not depending on nature of campaign/ how approaching it.

For what is worth this is what mine says

From the Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG

I made the chapter this is a part of a free download
When to Make a Ruling

 

[gban007]

Yes.

No. I think I posted about this upthread.

The rule in 5e D&D, according to this from DnD Beyond, is "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

What principle does the GM use to decide if something is uncertain? I don't know if the rulebook suggests one (or more).

Here is the rule for "say 'yes' or roll the dice" from p 72 of BW Gold (available for free on DTRPG):

In his game, Dogs in the Vineyard, Vincent Baker articulates a convention of Burning Wheel so well that I’d rather use his words than my own. He says:​

​

Every moment of play, roll dice or say “yes.”​

​

If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.​

​

Sooner or later - sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis - they’ ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.​

​

Roll dice, or say “yes.”​

​

Vincent’s advice is perfect for Burning Wheel. Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with​

the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice.​

​

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome.​

This has to be read in conjunction with other fundamentals of the game, found on pp 9-11, 24-25, 30-31:

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . .​

​

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.​

​

Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities. The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book. . . .​

​

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . . Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .​

​

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. What does your character do? A task should be easily linked to an ability: the Sword skill, the Research skill or the Health attribute. . . .​

​

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.​

​

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . . .​

​

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .​

So the GM's key job is to present the players with problems based on the players' priorities that are components of PC builds (alongside the familiar numerical ratings). So whether or not something is at stake is a function of those priorities. Not a function of the GM's judgement. It is ultimately the player who has the greatest authority to call for a test.

And it is player-declared intent - obviously and intimately connected to the stakes of a situation - that is key to action resolution: success on a test means intent is achieved; failure means that the intent does not come to pass.

So in Burning Wheel, the notion of uncertainty has no role to play. Rather, a situation or outcome becomes uncertain, in play, because it puts at stake something that matters by reference to a player's priorities for their PC. We know it is uncertain, in play, because the rules tell us to roll the dice. And in BW task is secondary - it tells us what skill(s) to use in the test, because these reflect the different sorts of things PCs can do; and it also determines the difficulty, because obstacles are established by reference to the "objective" difficulty of a particular task; - but task does not bear upon whether or not the dice need to be rolled. That is a function of stakes, which flow from the interaction of the way the scene is framed, and the intent of a player's action declaration.

So this has almost nothing in common with the 5e D&D heuristic, other than that both involve rolling dice sometimes but not always.

And that's before we even get to the possibility, inherent in the 5e D&D approach but not part of BW, that the GM might decide it is not uncertain because it will undoubtedly fail.

The notion of the GM feeling whether or not something is at stake, and on that basis deciding what is or is not uncertain, might be useful in 5e D&D. It has no work to do in GMing Burning Wheel, though.

Fair enough, and as I reflect your previous threads etc on burning wheel also support that it is very much a stakes driven game, and tightly written to support that, and while a specific question may be a yes one time, and roll the dice I another similar situation, that would only be because the characters or stakes have changed since then, nature of campaign doesn't really apply, could be swashbuckling pirates or some deep dungeon heist, but either way only the stakes matter for the resolution question.
I would have to check what other rules sets say, I would have imaged pathfinder being similar to dnd, such that DMs would approach an adventure path differently to a sandbox, even if just using the tools available, and I would have to check likes of One Ring as to whether the travel rolls are always in play, or if referee has option when to roll them or not.

 

[Campbell]

At the end of day we cannot say anything definitive about what roleplaying games are or how their designers are allowed to define their play procedures because roleplaying games aren't one defined thing. It's just a broad category for games that share similar characteristics. Apocalypse Keys is not limited in the structure it takes because it calls itself a roleplaying game. No more than Clair Obscur needs to take on a particular form because it's a video game (or more specifically a roleplaying video game).

There's no platonic form. No set GM role. Sometimes you have a referee and other times you have other structures.
The GM as Referee paradigm that defines most of the more mainstream games in our hobby for instance is not consistent with GM as invested Master of Ceremonies or Scene Framer. The structures do not match up.

When I run Apocalypse Keys I do not adjudicate.

 

[pemerton]

I would have to check what other rules sets say, I would have imaged pathfinder being similar to dnd, such that DMs would approach an adventure path differently to a sandbox, even if just using the tools available

I don't know what PF says, in either of its versions.

4e D&D is pretty close to Burning Wheel - the famous stuff about the gate guards, and other bits of advice, suggest stakes as the threshold for a check; and the rules on player-authored quests introduce the key idea of player-authored priorities.

That said, 4e D&D is not as clear as BW in its text. Which as we all probably remember caused lots of arguments and confusion; and also unsatisfying play (eg skill challenges where there are no stakes, or where the GM keeps the stakes hidden from the players, are not very satisfying as a play experience).

I don't recall what 3E D&D says.

 

[Faolyn]

@pemerton, I think you're thinking about something completely different than what we're talking about. Or at least what I'm talking about.

Anyway, games like chess and backgammon have basically one way to play. Sure, you can bring in variations, but it's still the same game. There's a set of rules you follow. You may change the rules a bit, but presumably, and it's possible that one player may not realize what house rules you have, but in general, you all know what's going on.

But RPGs don't have one specific set of rules. And here, when I say rules, I don't mean how to make a character or make a check or something. I mean there's no one way to actually be a player or be a GM. Because RPGs, even the most tactical-combat-oriented ones, are social events centered around a conversation and people have very different ideas of what that means. So even if every agrees on the mechanics on how a game works, people are still going to approach the game in very different ways. You can have a player who always talks in character and roleplays breakfast in the same party as someone only talks in third person and prefers combat to talking, and everything in between.

To go back to "how to be a refereee," as one example, some games tell the GM to have players roll the dice whenever they need to use a skill, while others say to have players check skills only if failure would have really interesting or dire circumstances and to otherwise let the PCs succeed, but neither game can force the GM to actually follow those suggestions. (When I run Level Up, I will sometimes have PCs roll not to see if they can do something but to see how well they do it and just assume success when failure would not be interesting.)

Likewise, a game can have rules for giving out balanced treasure and you will still have Monty Haul GMs or have a suggestion of 6-8 resource-draining encounters per day and still have GMs (like me) who find that to be a very stupid suggestion.

What this means is that, even if a game were to say "players can only do what the GM allows" (although I doubt many games say that, at least not these days), there's nothing that's going to make the GM actually follow that.

I have no idea if any of that makes sense or is what you were talking about.

Anyway. This:

Not every process other than following a script will necessarily be sandbox-y, however. I already mentioned upthread that I think it would be misleading to describe Burning Wheel as a sandbox game; although it is a very non-script-y RPG. To count as a sandbox, I think the process has to make journeying matter in some way - journeying has to have a distinctive sort of heft in resolution.

To me, that depends on two things: the setting, and how much the players actually want to deal with traveling. Obviously, traveling in a setting that has fast transport and long-distance communication is going to look very different than traveling in a setting where you have to walk or ride a horse.

But for a journey to be meaningful by your definition, you then have to go into resource management, which a lot of people absolutely hate. Even if it's as simple as "OK, you're in town, rations cost 1 silver a day, the actual trip takes 10 days so mark off one gold" or "check all the boxes on this track and erase a check for each day that goes by," and that's it, for many, that's either too much record keeping or simply boring that gets worse if you have to deal with various events possibly wrecking their belongings and/or causing them to starve. Otherwise, plenty of people are fine with having the scenery described by the GM, maybe RPing whatever activities they're taking when traveling, and breaking it up with an encounter or two, and then getting to their destination of choice. And I don't think I'd want to say those aren't sandboxes.

(Personally, I don't think I've ever had a GM who wanted to deal with resource management when traveling, so I can't say how I'd feel about it. Although I find I like resource dice over tracking actual consumables.)

Likewise, I'd say you can have a sandbox in a sci fi setting where travel is as fast and as easy as in Star Trek or Star Wars, because how you journey in those games usually isn't as important as what you do while journeying.

In the context of sandboxing, the map-and-key technique of classic D&D won't be very satisfactory if the GM is just making up the map on the spot (and I don't mean here determining in a procedurally rigorous way, like Appendix B of Gygax's DMG, but literally just making up as the fancy takes them). Because how is just making it up any different from the scripting that sandbox play was supposed to be an alternative to?

I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm having a hard time seeing how a GM making the map up as they go won't be interesting. It might be very random, unless the GM is following actual geological principles, but on the other hand, it may be a setting where random is useful. Heck, I just read a game today that had the players (it's a GMless game) fill in the hex map as they go along, with no pre-planned setting other than "eldritch forest, here's your village."

 

[Hussar]

Upthread, you claimed people need to be able to defend your position.

Can you defend your position without using something that isn't a game for your analogy? Not auger bits or cars or pranks like 52-card pickup, but two actual RPGs, and explain why one is "literally" better for sandboxes?

Define "better".

I will argue that Ironsworn is easier to use for a sandbox game. I will not argue that it's better. I will argue that it's easier because it requires a lot less work to get off the ground than something like D&D where you need a lot of work (whether it's you doing the work, or buying the work of other people) before you can start playing.

So, yeah, I'd say that Ironsworn is easier. Better? Nope.

 

[Hussar]

So if you're not saying Ironsworn is better, or D&D is worse, then why did you continue to do all this? Because everything people were saying here was in response to you insisting that you know the right way to run a sandbox and they don't.

Uhh, no?

At no point have I made the slightest claim about knowing the "right way to run a sandbox". In fact I have repeatedly stated that I've used D&D for sandboxes.

What I said, and continue to say is that it is a lot less work ie. faster and easier, to get a sandbox campaign off the ground in other systems than D&D. Even your own example of the most basic scenario - a simple six encounter adventure - needed more than half an hour to create. Let's take it at half an hour. Let's take your time as given.

So, every location that the DM needs takes half an hour to create. The DM is going to need at least six locations at the outset of a sandbox. Otherwise, it's not much of a sandbox, right? So, right there, we're looking at 3 hours of work (and that's VERY generous) just to have the most basic sandbox created. Note, the DM at this point has not created anything else. No world, no town to start in, no overarching map, nothing. Just six points of interest. Oh, and the DM needs a random encounter chart or two for travel between POI. There's another bit of work.

Just using your own numbers, it takes hours of work MORE to get your sandbox off the ground than it took me in Ironsworn. So, yes, I would argue, using your own numbers, that it is faster an easier to run sandboxes in other systems than D&D.

Now, is it better? No comment. Not a single judgement about which is better. That's entirely on you.

 

[Hussar]

snip

The things you mentioned, like creating multiple adventure locations and building multiple random encounter tables, come with the territory of creating a setting that works well for sandbox campaigns.
/snip

That being my point. This approach to building sandboxes - while certainly successful - also requires a lot of front end work to get things off the ground. And there are systems out there for which that isn't true. Thus, some systems are faster and easier for creating sandboxes than D&D.

I'm honestly not really sure why this is so contentious.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To me this is a key point. I like non-prescriptive guidelines and advice. One of the things that I found I fell into when I got into sandbox was taking too much overly prescriptive advice to heart. And I think my games suffered for it. It was when I realized you have to take whatever advice you find useful and apply it to the table before you that I started running them in a way that I think was more satisfying for everyone involved.

Viewing all rules as inherently "they box you in and prevent you from doing good things" is a position I don't agree with. That is definitely something that can happen, and I do not in any way mean to argue otherwise. But to presume that every rule is a terribly bad thing unless it does something so amazingly wonderful that it becomes indispensable? That is just as much a mistake as assuming that every rule is always an amazingly wonderful thing unless it does something terribly bad.

As pemerton referenced in a previous post, albeit not in so many words, a D&D-alike rulebook that features well-constructed, robust, and diverse random encounter tables is a huge boon for anyone wanting to run a sandbox game. But that's a hard-coded rule, not advice! Likewise, a system which provides clear, straightforward rules for how overland travel of various kinds works, would surely be more useful to the typical sandbox-game-runner than a system that exclusively has "guidelines and advice" for such a common and important task. Or, at risk of putting too fine a point on it, would you accept an edition of D&D that eliminated HP, AC, damage dice, hit rolls, etc., and replaced them with "non-prescriptive guidelines and advice"? I suspect you would not, and would find the loss of hard-coded rules to be a pretty serious downgrade.

Point being, both hard-coded rules and gentle guidance, both prescriptive advice and hints-and-tips suggestions, have their place in game design and structure. As a good example of prescriptive advice I think is quite appropriate: "If you're going to fudge, do it very sparingly, and only when you don't think you can make some other method work better." (My personal preference would be an explicit "never ever do this", but I recognize my position is not universal here.) Or for another: "Player trust is extremely important. Never take an action that you think would jeopardize that trust, even if the benefits would be enormous, because doing so would risk the collapse of your campaign."

----

Separately, as @robertsconley said, I was not claiming that the X-card (nor O-card) has any relation whatsoever to sandboxes of any kind. It's completely orthogonal. The sole purpose of naming it was as an example of something where the total absence of any mechanic whatsoever is not as good as the presence of one (assuming, as always, that it is a a reasonably well-made one; "bad mechanics are bad" is hardly a revelation). Because there was a pretty clear argument being made that, all else being equal, the absence of mechanics is nearly always better than the presence of one that might possibly somehow get in the way. Sometimes, an absence is the best choice (and I gave an example where 13A did just that). Other times, an absence cannot ever be as good as a presence of some kind, even if different groups need or want different things filling that space. In yet other times, an absence will be better for some and worse for others, and vice-versa.

In general, I hold that if something is really deeply important to playing a particular game, that thing should have rules. I don't consider this a particularly extreme or controversial position...outside of places like ENWorld that have a very D&D-traditionalist, and thus hostile-to-rules, overall orientation/preference.