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

[Faolyn]

BW has an implicit setting, but not a mandatory setting. As a scenario, "The Sword" presents a setting that lends itself to Tolkienesque dwarf-elf mutual antagonism and distrust. It's just one way you could play the game. It's really pretty modular.

Yeah, but with randos at a convention for a 20-minute game, it's unlikely that there would be anything other than a cliche. Possible, but unlikely.

All I'm saying is, that scenario is unlikely to have made me, personally, want to explore the game further.

 

[Maxperson]

Let me try to clarify then.

The characters were not "just exploring". They were traveling to a specific location to explore that specific location. The only reason they went to that specific location is because the DM deliberately called it out as a place of interest - it has a cool name, it's probably somewhere that would be interesting to go.

That's not exploring. Exploring isn't traveling to a specific destination.

That's not true. Explorers have gone to try and make it to the north pole, which is a specific destination. Explorers have gone to explore California or Florida. Going to a geographical area to explore is something that explorers have done. There's no difference between that and a party going to explore a forest with a cool name. They aren't going to the Great Oak. The are going to a general, large geographical feature and exploring it to see what they find.

That's exploring.

Edit: It's also well known that people go to specific cave systems to explore them. What's different about a cave system that makes you able to explore those, but you can't explore a large forest?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Yeah, but with randos at a convention for a 20-minute game, it's unlikely that there would be anything other than a cliche. Possible, but unlikely.

All I'm saying is, that scenario is unlikely to have made me, personally, want to explore the game further.

Sure, that's fine. And I agree that a convention demo is unlikely to avoid producing cliches (though it can be surprising in some ways -- e.g., my buddy having the dwarf seek to destroy the sword). My point was just that this setting isn't baked in to the rules.

Also, the point of the demo is to show off the tech. What makes this FRPG different from all the other FRPGs on the market? The Duel of Wits rules were pretty novel at the time, and it's a great scenario for showing how BW might play differently. Because it's trivial to imagine how the same scenario might play out in other games and how players and the GM might orient themselves to the scenario.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Double post.

 

[pemerton]

You use jargon like "resolution system", "player priorities", "intent + task" which, since you don't describe anything sounds just like the standard D&D play cycle. Resolution cycle is either combat, exploration or social encounters.

I've posted the rules - many times now, so I won't do so again - and examples (of PCs and of play).

The resolution system is not much like the D&D 5e resolution system, as I posted way upthread in reply to @mamba. In D&D 5e, the GM has to decide if the outcome of a player's declared action is uncertain; if it is the dice are rolled. In Burning Wheel, the GM and player identify if there is anything at stake in the situation: if not, the player's declared action succeeds and the GM continue to narrate the unfolding situation; if yes, then we know the outcome is uncertain because the rules mandate a roll.

Something being at stake sounds like "When in doubt ask for a roll"

How? Something being at stake means just that - does the outcome of the action matter to the PC (and thus, the player)? That is nothing to do with "when in doubt".

what you talk about here (which I'm sure we've seen many times) but it's also quite vague. It doesn't really tell me anything. In a D&D social encounter I could say that the characters may try to bribe the guard to gain entrance via the back door and it either works or it doesn't. There's no indication or reason given as to difficulty so we're left guessing that whatever they try is possible. The text doesn't provides any limits or restrictions it just repeats that if there are stakes roll dice. Which to me indicates anything the players may want to do is possible ... which then we're vehemently told is not true.

When you say "there's no indication or reason give as to difficulty" I don't know if you're talking about D&D - in which case what you say is true - or about Burning Wheel - in which case what you say is false: as I've already posted upthread, the rulebook has hundreds of example obstacles, at all sorts of levels of generality, covering the gamut of tasks that are feasible within the genre of the game (ie historically-flavoured mediaeval fantasy).

As for the rule being vague, it's not "quite vague". If there is no conflict - if nothing is at stake - then say "yes"; otherwise roll the dice.

If, in a given moment of play, the player and GM can't tell whether or not something is at stake, then one or both of the following needs to happen: the GM needs to tell the player more about the situation; and/or the player needs to tell the GM more about the intent with which they are performing their declared task.

Player priorities in a sandbox are handled by the group deciding which direction to go.

<snip>

the party as a group has decided current goals by choosing a plot thread

I've posted multiple examples of BW player priorities - Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Relationships etc for Thurgon, Aramina and Thoth, plus the pre-gens for The Sword. I assume it's fairly clear how these are different from a decision about "which direction to go", and also that they are different from "choosing a plot thread". They are part of the build of a PC - as the rules say, a PC consists (i) of numerically-rated stats and (ii) these player-determined priorities - and the GM's principal job is to present situations based on these priorities.

D&D describes the different roles in the game in much the same way.

No it doesn't. It talks about the job of the GM being to create an adventure. It says nothing about the GM's job being to create situations that address player-determined priorities.

.

I would also note that here you're talking about "When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails." when above it's stated there are not obstacles.

I assume that you're referring, here, to my remark that "There are not obstacles in the way of some goal", which was a remark that built upon something @TwoSix posted. I did not say "there are not obstacle". My point is that the game is not based around (i) player creates goal, then (ii) GM puts obstacles in the way of that goal. Rather, the game is built around (i) player creates a character with priorities, and then (ii) GM puts those priorities under pressure.

Here's an illustration of the difference. Consider Thoth, whose Beliefs include I will give the dead new life!. On the first model, a GM might create a whole scenario about Thoth trying to find a body suitable to raise as an undead - say, first he has to do this thing, then that thing, then this other thing, etc, until - if successful - he eventually obtains a suitable corpse. That would be obstacles in the way of a goal. But it would not be anything like Burning Wheel play, because it would not be the GM framing Thoth into scenes based on his priorities. Because each of <this thing>, <that thing>, <this other thing> - on the first model - might have nothing at all to do with any of the player-determined priorities for Thoth.

Not sure how this works when you have 6 or more players at the table

I don't know; I've never tried.

Metacurrency, persona points that players is quite different from the D&D idea of the character's actions and words being the only thing that matters in world.

Huh? Upthread you mentioned the 5e rules for traits, etc - so presumably you're familiar with how these relate to Inspiration as a meta-currency. So I don't really understand the contrast you are drawing here.

Intent + task just sounds like the player declaring what their character says and does. But then you say it's all different or somehow BW is sandbox when D&D is not or cannot be.

Given that I've - in multiple posts - stated that BW is not a sandbox game (see eg post 3663 for the most recent of probably half-a-dozen such posts in this thread); and have said nothing in any post about whether or not D&D can be played as a sandbox, other than to identify Gygaxian dungeon-crawling as a type of sandbox - I have no idea where you are getting this from.

You seem to be projecting some prior idea of yours onto my posts, rather than actually taking seriously what I am saying in them.

Sounds a lot like D&D's traits, bonds and flaws. However most people, myself included, only truly develop their character in play and I've found the traits and flaws or Beliefs/Instincts/Character Traits are so vague and nebulous that there's not much to build on.

There is basically no resemblance - in terms of the role they perform in driving play - between Burning Wheel Beliefs, Instincts and Traits and the traits, bonds and flaws found in 5e D&D. As you seem to agree with, when you describe them as vague and nebulous.

Beliefs like I will give the dead new life! or I don't need Thurgon's pity are not vague and nebulous. I can tell you, from experience, that they drive play.

Sounds similar typical D&D sandbox that most people have been describing.

How is "Nor is there any adventure in the literal sense. There is Thoth going about his business, but not finding life easy" similar to what typical D&D sandbox players are describing? For a start, adventure is central to those sandboxes.

you don't compare or contrast anything to D&D, you talk about resolutions but don't give concrete example and quite frankly it just becomes this wall of text that's hard to read.

I've posted probably a dozen actual play examples in this thread, so I don't know why you are complaining about there being no examples. In the post you replied to, I gave a brief account of Thoth's argument with the Death Priest.

I take the contrast with mainstream 5e D&D to be obvious: mainstream 5e D&D does not work on the principle that players determine priorities for their PCs, and the GM presents problems/situations/scenes that speak to those priorities. And 5e D&D does not work on the principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice", based on whether or not something is at stake. Rather, it asks that GM to decide if the outcome of the action is uncertain, and then - if it is - to call for a roll of the dice.

These are completely different approaches both to how the GM comes up with scenes and how declared actions are resolved.

 

[The Firebird]

The GM is describing and bringing the ship captain to life, but they are not doing so as an adjudicator. They are framing - authoring details about the world that are further designed to test and provoke the beliefs of the player characters. It's a creative rather than evaluative act. It's constrained by things like plausibility, but the job is to keep the game focused on the belief statements established when characters are made and to frame compelling scenes / decision points for players related to their characters' beliefs.

I guess this still seems to me like the GM adjudicating the world. They're still deciding how it plays out. The difference is they're encouraged to do so with reference to the characters stated goals rather than (just) the established content of the setting.

This is where the lack of verisimilitude comes in, imo. If the NPCs I encounter keep testing my character, they feel designed for the character, rather than independent entities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If someone is being abusive no game rule is going to make a bit of difference.

Except that it can.

It can't 100% perfectly prevent problems. That, I agree with.

But rules absolutely can, and do, make a difference. They do so all the time in our daily lives.

Rules--particularly ones that are known and public--make it easier for well-intentioned people to avoid accidentally doing something wrong, and make it harder for ill-intentioned people to get away with things. Rules provide a floor from which to negotiate, and importantly, well-constructed rules legitimately do help keep people on the same page, thus reducing the chance of major problems.

It's simply false to say that rules never make a difference--even when those rules aren't "obey or we'll force you". Just because they aren't a perfect shield doesn't mean we should pretend they make no difference at all.

 

[The Firebird]

The real world is a place about which near-infinite data can be and has been collected, and which has millions of people working hard to generate and disseminate predictions. And yet it is hard to make reliable predictions outside certain rather narrow domains (physics, chemistry, and associated engineering are the main domains; also some aspects of biology).

I strongly disagree with this. I can see your point narrowly, as in "it is hard to know what world politics will look like in 10 years". But if I enter a store, I have a good idea how the propieter will respond. If I make a reservation, I know what to expect. If I insult someone and I know their personality, I can guess how they would respond.

I think 100% predictive accuracy is much too high a standard here.

As I said, I don't see how the heuristic extrapolate what is most plausible/realistic is meant to be applied in these sorts of cases. Given that these fictional setting are characterised by tropes rather than (imaginary) causal laws, it's also seems to me that there must be a very strong aesthetic component to what counts as "realistic" (or "true to the setting") - which is not always going to be straightforwardly consistent with impartiality.

These are all areas where the referee has to make a ruling. Ideally they'll have thought it through beforehand. If not, then they can make a ruling that strikes them as reasonable in the moment. This then becomes part of the world and should be followed in the future.

A good referee will do so impartially.

 

[pemerton]

But there must be someone adjudicating the world, right? If the intent is to find a ship captain and they succeed, who describes the NPC? Who decides how large the ship is and what the fee will be?

To add to what @Campbell posted in reply:

The ship size may be mere colour, in which case the GM will narrate it. If it matters, then the player may have specified it - "I want to find a captain with such-and-such sort of vessel" - which increases the difficulty of the Circles test, by increasing the specificity of the NPC being sought out; or conversely the player may have left it to the GM, in which case - as Campbell said - the GM will make a decision applying the general principle of present problems based on the player-determined priorities.

The fee is - mechanically - an obstacle for a Resources test, which is based on the description of the ability - which contains examples from which extrapolations are to be made (similar to, say, the Climbing skill or the Knots skill or the Weapon-smithing skill).

I appreciate your description of the mechanics you had in mind which followed. But I think it is getting into the weeds of system, and doesn't for me explain the salient point: why do you think the fixed world sandbox can be railroading, but player driven is not? I don't think this requires a detailed explanation of how tests are made to be answered.

Well, again I think we disagree.

The essence of a railroad, in my view, is GM control over the fiction. Total GM control means a total railroad. Because control admits of degrees, so you can see me talk about railroading in degrees also ("railroad-y"). In a mainstream sort of RPG - which BW is, with its asymmetric roles of player and GM - there are two main ways of changing the fiction: the GM introduces new fiction by telling the players some new thing that their PCs notice or experience or encounter; or, a player has their PC do something (ie declares an action for their PC) and then that action generates consequences. So understanding whether or not RPG play is a railroad requires understanding how scenes are framed and how consequences are established. And the latter is all about the details of action resolution systems.

I still don't have a good understanding of what precisely you think is railroading. At the moment it seems to me like a "I know it when I see it" standard. And maybe that is the extent of it.

See above. It is about the GM's control over the fiction.

This is why dungeoncrawling is able to reconcile a high degree of pre-authorship with non-railroad-y play: because the players can (within the genre confines of the dungeon crawl) exercise control over the fiction, by making action resolutions whose results - especially over time, as the players build up their skills and increase their knowledge of the dungeon - are knowable by them. So, via their action declarations, they control what comes next in the fiction.

As I've already posted, the general tendency of the "living world" is to reduce that player capacity, by reducing knowability.

If that isn't the extent of it, what is the minimal working example to your mind that illustrates it? Can it be captured in a sentence or two? E.g., "If the party wants to head east but the GM comes up with unrealistic barriers which prevent their action then it is railroading".

I feel I've seen a lot about specific mechanics, but little about the general principals that make them better or worse (in your view) for these purposes.

I hope that this post provides you with some answers.

 

[AlViking]

I've posted the rules - many times now, so I won't do so again - and examples (of PCs and of play).

The resolution system is not much like the D&D 5e resolution system, as I posted way upthread in reply to @mamba. In D&D 5e, the GM has to decide if the outcome of a player's declared action is uncertain; if it is the dice are rolled. In Burning Wheel, the GM and player identify if there is anything at stake in the situation: if not, the player's declared action succeeds and the GM continue to narrate the unfolding situation; if yes, then we know the outcome is uncertain because the rules mandate a roll.

How? Something being at stake means just that - does the outcome of the action matter to the PC (and thus, the player)? That is nothing to do with "when in doubt".

When you say "there's no indication or reason give as to difficulty" I don't know if you're talking about D&D - in which case what you say is true - or about Burning Wheel - in which case what you say is false: as I've already posted upthread, the rulebook has hundreds of example obstacles, at all sorts of levels of generality, covering the gamut of tasks that are feasible within the genre of the game (ie historically-flavoured mediaeval fantasy).

As for the rule being vague, it's not "quite vague". If there is no conflict - if nothing is at stake - then say "yes"; otherwise roll the dice.

If, in a given moment of play, the player and GM can't tell whether or not something is at stake, then one or both of the following needs to happen: the GM needs to tell the player more about the situation; and/or the player needs to tell the GM more about the intent with which they are performing their declared task.

I've posted multiple examples of BW player priorities - Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Relationships etc for Thurgon, Aramina and Thoth, plus the pre-gens for The Sword. I assume it's fairly clear how these are different from a decision about "which direction to go", and also that they are different from "choosing a plot thread". They are part of the build of a PC - as the rules say, a PC consists (i) of numerically-rated stats and (ii) these player-determined priorities - and the GM's principal job is to present situations based on these priorities.

No it doesn't. It talks about the job of the GM being to create an adventure. It says nothing about the GM's job being to create situations that address player-determined priorities.

.I assume that you're referring, here, to my remark that "There are not obstacles in the way of some goal", which was a remark that built upon something @TwoSix posted. I did not say "there are not obstacle". My point is that the game is not based around (i) player creates goal, then (ii) GM puts obstacles in the way of that goal. Rather, the game is built around (i) player creates a character with priorities, and then (ii) GM puts those priorities under pressure.

Here's an illustration of the difference. Consider Thoth, whose Beliefs include I will give the dead new life!. On the first model, a GM might create a whole scenario about Thoth trying to find a body suitable to raise as an undead - say, first he has to do this thing, then that thing, then this other thing, etc, until - if successful - he eventually obtains a suitable corpse. That would be obstacles in the way of a goal. But it would not be anything like Burning Wheel play, because it would not be the GM framing Thoth into scenes based on his priorities. Because each of <this thing>, <that thing>, <this other thing> - on the first model - might have nothing at all to do with any of the player-determined priorities for Thoth.

I don't know; I've never tried.

Huh? Upthread you mentioned the 5e rules for traits, etc - so presumably you're familiar with how these relate to Inspiration as a meta-currency. So I don't really understand the contrast you are drawing here.

Given that I've - in multiple posts - stated that BW is not a sandbox game (see eg post 3663 for the most recent of probably half-a-dozen such posts in this thread); and have said nothing in any post about whether or not D&D can be played as a sandbox, other than to identify Gygaxian dungeon-crawling as a type of sandbox - I have no idea where you are getting this from.

You seem to be projecting some prior idea of yours onto my posts, rather than actually taking seriously what I am saying in them.

There is basically no resemblance - in terms of the role they perform in driving play - between Burning Wheel Beliefs, Instincts and Traits and the traits, bonds and flaws found in 5e D&D. As you seem to agree with, when you describe them as vague and nebulous.

Beliefs like I will give the dead new life! or I don't need Thurgon's pity are not vague and nebulous. I can tell you, from experience, that they drive play.

How is "Nor is there any adventure in the literal sense. There is Thoth going about his business, but not finding life easy" similar to what typical D&D sandbox players are describing? For a start, adventure is central to those sandboxes.

I've posted probably a dozen actual play examples in this thread, so I don't know why you are complaining about there being no examples. In the post you replied to, I gave a brief account of Thoth's argument with the Death Priest.

I take the contrast with mainstream 5e D&D to be obvious: mainstream 5e D&D does not work on the principle that players determine priorities for their PCs, and the GM presents problems/situations/scenes that speak to those priorities. And 5e D&D does not work on the principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice", based on whether or not something is at stake. Rather, it asks that GM to decide if the outcome of the action is uncertain, and then - if it is - to call for a roll of the dice.

These are completely different approaches both to how the GM comes up with scenes and how declared actions are resolved.

Unlike what I get if I read the intro chapter to the PHB I don't really get a feel for what gameplay is really like. The fact that you use dice to resolve obstacles is just about the only thing your preferred game has in common with D&D as far as I can tell. You make no effort to explain how the principles could apply, no effort to really justify why you think a story driven game is a sandbox and D&D is not.

Posting snippets of the rules repeatedly when people don't get how the game actually works is obviously not working, perhaps you should try a different approach or find some small way to relate it back to the D&D game which, in theory, is the thread topic. As I said above I think I have a better understanding of what you're talking about from reading the Wikipedia entry than your insistence on repeatedly pasting the same blocks of text.

I don't know why you think what you've been posting is adding to the conversation other than so you can tell people that they're wrong.