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

[Hussar]

I think the more that the game system relies on the GM for authority around actionable elements of play, the more prep you need to do to give the players that pre-available set of decisions to minimize "railroading."

Huh. Interesting. I wonder who said pretty much exactly this, if perhaps not so pithily phrased a hundred or so page ago.

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton , one last try.

Your examples get lost in the weeds of play. Now, before you write up a response that's thousands of words long, take a step back. Keep it simple. Obviously many people don't understand your explanations. It doesn't help that you repeatedly redefine words, insist that if people don't use your exact verbiage that they're wrong. It's not "style", it's "technique". It's not "story now" it's, well you had a couple other adjectives in there I forget. Meanwhile other sources call it narrative or character driven. You don't own the words people use but you constantly complain about people not using your exacting terms muddies your point.

So tell us an over-simplified version.

1. Set up a scenario with 2-3 players. The characters have some aspect, but just pick one or two per character. We don't need all the detail.
2. The GM sets up a scene. Why? What's the motivation?
3. The players react to the scene.
4. The GM responds, creating obstacles(?). How do you decide how easy or difficult?
5. The scene ends. How do you decide how the next scene is impacted.
6. How does this turn into a longer term campaign.

This is all demonstrated in The Sword, which you can download for free and that I linked to above. Here it is: Burning Wheel The Sword Demo Adventure PDF

I'm not really inclined to write up a summary. You can look at the PCs and see their Beliefs (I quoted some salient ones upthread). You can see the setup (I quoted this fully, upthread). The scenario also gives some suggestions for how to frame a new scene/situation, based on the outcome. (I quoted some of this upthread.) The way it turns into a longer term campaign is to keep doing it.

Most of the obstacle in this scenario will be opposed checks (versus tests in the terminology of the game for which the scenario is written, ie Burning Wheel). But suppose someone tries to break the sword - then the obstacle would be taken from the list of obstacles in the rulebook. As I've already said, there are hundreds of sample obstacles provided.

 

[pemerton]

So long as the players are making their own decisions in the setting through their PCs, and the DM is being fair with the use of their prep (by which I mean, not changing the situation in play beyond setting logic), that's enough agency for me.

Yes, I know.

As far as your "powerful faction TPKs the party" scenario, IME a GM almost always has choices in how to respond to PC action with NPCs, all of them meeting the setting logic test to some degree. I would choose one that doesn't result in the immediate and unavoidable death of the party with no way out. Games run by humans have that kind of wiggle room

That doesn't sound impartial!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I know.

That doesn't sound impartial!

If multiple courses of action are equally valid via world logic, and one of those doesn't result in a negative, game-ending experience for all the players, I'm fine with less than total impartiality.

There's that wiggle room I mentioned earlier.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes, I know.

That doesn't sound impartial!

I do agree that choosing an outcome based on avoiding TPK isn’t impartial

 

[zakael19]

Not realistic in a personal, subjective sense. "It doesn't feel realistic to me". Characterizing this statement as objective (and adding the dismissive lol) is your contribution, not mine.

The dismissive context shows up in comments here and across this site over and over on this subject, particularly the belaboring of "wow what you just described sounds terrible" that @pemerton noted.

Genuinely curious question: what is it about thinking that a GM is looking at notes about a world / setting / upcoming occurrence that makes it feel like it has more weight to you? Like, when I ran D&D 5e I was making stuff up on the fly all the time because of the relative minimalistic context most WOTC stuff gives you (or if it gives details it's often contradictory or deeply railroady). So I was extemporizing stuff out to, as the 2024 DMG puts it now "maximize fun for all involved." Primarily by poking back at things players had expressed interest about (eg: my Critical Role fan players had NPCs highlighted back that they were like "WHOA, HIM??" even thought I had no context), or background elements.

So is it the mild deception of "GM looks at paper and says stuff" that makes it feel like, concrete? Rolling on a random table feels consistent? Knowing that to your best understanding things are planned for? Never feeling like "quantum ogres" are a step away?

 

[Maxperson]

I've stated it before: "control over the shared fiction" doesn't seem well-defined to me. I haven't seen you offer a concise definition of that; just long examples that haven't generalized clearly (for me).

@pemerton's definition is fatally flawed as it simply doesn't exist in any game where the DM is acting in good faith. If the players arrive in a city and tell me that they find a tavern, they've taken control of the fiction and the fiction moves towards a tavern. If the players instead decide to insult the gate guards, they've taken control of the fiction and moved it in a very different direction.

As the DM I am reacting to what the players do 99.999% of the time. They're the ones moving the fiction and I am responding to what they say and do. In the very first game of the campaign, I do the initial description for them to react to. At that point, though, everything I prep or do in the game is in response to the players.

If the players decide to go north to the Fire God's Mountain, everything I prep for that journey and destination is in response to what they are doing. If halfway there they meet someone from the city of Shrilly Vanilli and they find that more interesting and change directions to go there, now I have to react to their change in the fiction and prep stuff in that direction.

There is no good faith game of D&D where the players have no control over the fiction and the DM controls everything. I may prep stuff, but they control the general type of prep I can do through their actions and declarations. If they decide to go to Shrilly Vanilli, I'm not going to prepare for them to arrive at the Swamp of Ill Repute on the other side of the world. I have to prepare for them to go to Shrilly Vanilli.

 

[Faolyn]

If that 1-to-5 ratio holds up then clearly, absent any other factors, there's going to be about 5 times as many bad players as bad DMs, hm?

The answer, of course, is to play with people you know, preferably live rather than online. And if none of those people want to play with you then it's probably time for a long hard look in the mirror.

If a DM is phenomenal at 9 out of 10 things it's probably worth letting the 10th thing slide as that DM is a keeper; most DMs are phenomenal at only a few things (or, like me, at probably none) and are simply good enough to get by at the rest.

It really, really depends on what that 10th thing is, though.

A GM could be really awesome at coming up with flavorful NPCs, interesting plot hooks, cleverly laid-out dungeons, and that sort of stuff--all the things that we want GMs to be able to do--and run roughshod over people's stated lines; or have their DMPCs do all the cool stuff, leaving the PCs with nothing to do but watch; or they railroad to the point where they actively punish PCs for trying to do anything outside the plot; or they engage in strong favoritism or bullying; or they refuse to shut the bad players down; or, or... there's a lot of reasons why that 10th thing can be a dealbreaker, no matter how good the GM is.

The thing is, since gaming is still both a niche hobby and a social one, it can be very hard to find a new group that one is comfortable playing with. Not everyone has access to a FLGS or community center to play in or feels comfortable playing with randos they met online. I don't and I'm not; if I lost my current group, I'd be sunk and may never get to play again (fortunately, my group is pretty awesome and is unlikely to stop being so). So a lot of people are willing to put up with GMs or other players who are phenomenal in one or two out of ten things (where "willing to GM" may actually be one of those things) and OK or actively bad in the rest of them.

 

[AlViking]

This is all demonstrated in The Sword, which you can download for free and that I linked to above. Here it is: Burning Wheel The Sword Demo Adventure PDF

I'm not really inclined to write up a summary. You can look at the PCs and see their Beliefs (I quoted some salient ones upthread). You can see the setup (I quoted this fully, upthread). The scenario also gives some suggestions for how to frame a new scene/situation, based on the outcome. (I quoted some of this upthread.) The way it turns into a longer term campaign is to keep doing it.

Most of the obstacle in this scenario will be opposed checks (versus tests in the terminology of the game for which the scenario is written, ie Burning Wheel). But suppose someone tries to break the sword - then the obstacle would be taken from the list of obstacles in the rulebook. As I've already said, there are hundreds of sample obstacles provided.

The PDF is pretty useless without the rules of the game and haven't you quoted most of this before? Since I'm not going to buy the game it's pointless. It's also one scene and doesn't explain why it was set up, what decisions went into it.

If you're willing to write or quote thousands upon thousands of jargon filled words and not spend a few minutes giving a simple and clear example it seems like you don't really want to have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Maxperson]

Because he said:

Emphasis added.

He literally said "if you don't have friends, preferably live rather than online, who want to play [a TTRPG] with you then it's probably time for a long hard look in the mirror."

There is no other interpretation of that last bit but "you have character faults which are the reason nobody wants to play with you."

He's saying to find people close to you, yes. However, the portion about character faults assumes that people are present and willing to play with you, but you have driven them away for reasons. If you don't know anyone and/or can't find anyone close to you wants to play a game, that's not about you having character faults. That's just bad luck and it happens frequently in rural areas of the country/world that have lower and/or more spread out populations.