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

[Paul Farquhar]

What do you mean, specifically, by players "invest in the setting"?

I’m with you there. I would consider being “invested” meaning “interested in”. And if the players are interested, they will want to learn more of the lore.

I sometimes wish my players were more interested in setting and lore, but they have many other admirable qualities so I shouldn’t complain.

 

[robertsconley]

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [...] There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, to Bishop Holden

So Lord Acton’s famous dictum: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” is a powerful quote but it's being misapplied in the context of tabletop RPGs and the role of the referee.

Authority can be abused. But we are discussing a form of small group interactions, the authority of a referee isn’t absolute, it’s contingent, provisional, and held in trust. It isn’t about power but about responsibility.

There are better frameworks than assuming suspicion as the default:


From J.R.R. Tolkien (a man who knew a thing or two about power and myth) wrote:

“The most improper job of any man, even saints... is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it... But someone has to do it.”
Letter to Christopher Tolkien, 1943

Tolkien understood that leadership is dangerous but necessary. The point isn’t to strip the referee of structure but to expect them to approach it with humility.

Elinor Ostrom, Nobel laureate for her work on self-governing systems, reminds us:

“There is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians... are better at solving problems than the people on the spot.”
Source

RPG tables are not monarchies. They’re peer-driven communities. Authority is earned through behavior, not fiat.


And finally, Hannah Arendt put it plainly:

“The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.”
Source

It’s easy to rail against authority until you’re the one responsible for the adjudication, maintaining consistency, and steering the game. Good referees know this isn’t power to wield, but a role to fill and held in trust.

Authority isn’t the enemy. Abuse of authority is. The answer isn’t to reject the referee’s role; it’s to foster accountability, humility, and group cohesion. What needed is cooperation, structure, and people who act in good faith.

Referees are not tyrants-in-waiting. They are folks getting together with their friends to have fun in the time they have for a hobby.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The guards can't be bribed because I don't want them to get past the guards (railroading, plot centric)

The guards can't be bribed because they're loyal to the King.


They both have the same plot effects (you don't get past the guards) but only one of them is railroading

I mean, this is the sort of thing that players can, and should, query. They might try and persuade the guards by reason, rather than bribery, for a start. And even if running an adventure path, the DM needs to be flexible enough to deal with unexpected plot developments.

 

[AlViking]

There is room for GM to make calls. At every moment of play, the GM is supposed to be attentive to whether something's at stake or not. If there's not, the answer is yes if it's a question from player to GM and RP continues, etc. It's not until that point that dice are rolled.

Upthread, in #4005, I posted a link to some APs. The links about Master Si Juk are good about showing when and how dice are rolled and what happens before then. My memory is that BW's antecedents are pretty typical RPGs -- Shadowrun, The Riddle of Steel, Pendragon -- and I found that how things worked in play is more typical than I expected.

But it doesn't matter what the character says, does it? Other than rolling dice in a way that is predetermined by the rules of the game?

edit - when I get a chance I may go back to your post, but to be honest most examples don't reveal as much as some people think

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I saw no rantiness in that quote. You also should heed your own words, your recent posts about Baker do not sound like you are open to other opinions, see

I'm not expecting people to cite me as a source of authority. In fact I would recommend against it. I have opinions, and they are mine.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

But it doesn't matter what the character says, does it? Other than rolling dice in a way that is predetermined by the rules of the game?

I'm not sure that I'm entirely following you here. But of course it matters. In the situation I framed in #4028, all of that, up to walking into his rival's room to take the corpse could be free play, the same as it would be in many other games. Aedhros and Thoth's players would declare actions and have their little dudes say things, and the GM would respond with descriptions or by playing NPCs and other narration until there's something at stake. And then we'd roll the dice in accordance with the rules of the game, same as any other RPG.

BW moves the trigger a little bit (in an old Reddit AMA, Crane says he designed it in part to create a game that reigned in some GMing habits he has and wasn't best fond of), and it has some different assumptions baked in that have filtered down into the community at large since the publication of BW Revised (say yes or roll the dice, let it ride, intent/task resolution). It also has an implicit setting that informs its mechanics -- BW games take place in a setting where characters hesitate before murdering the innkeeper in cold blood, BW sorcery and miracles work differently than each other, and so on.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

edit - when I get a chance I may go back to your post, but to be honest most examples don't reveal as much as some people think

That's fair. Luke Crane wrote those write-ups for the old BW forums, and there's some ellision of game play because he knows the audience well. I think there's valuable stuff in the broad strokes, but I'm part of his intended audience, and I'm sure I'm taking some things as given and filling in some blanks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

(Emphasis mine)

When you're saying such games are necessarily GM-directed, you seem to be agreeing with the point I just made -- if it's necessary to be that way, then clearly you believe that it is impossible for it to be otherwise.

Some of us disagree that such games are necessarily GM-directed, because our experience shows that it is not.

If my experience shows me something is occurring that you steadfastly believe is not possible, there does not seem to be any room left for meaningful discussion.

I suppose if you don't think that people having different opinions can have a meaningful discussion, then sure. I'm just describing my take on that kind of play... I'm not expecting you to adopt my opinion.

I hear you that you have enough ways to get your point across in the moment. But for those of us trying to refer to your position later, or to distinguish it in broader discussions, we don’t have a clear label to work with.

That’s where the problem comes in. When I or others refer to what you're describing as “creative collaboration,” it often gets dismissed as inaccurate. Or someone will respond with, “All RPGs involve creative collaboration,” which muddies the distinction entirely.

So do I treat it the way I’ve done with “conflict” in Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, and say something like:
“When your goal is creative collaboration as Hawkeyefan defines it…”?

Since this is about what you value in play, I think it would help keep conversations moving forward if you could offer a term or phrasing that reflects your specific goal: a campaign where the various elements, including ones traditionally reserved for the referee, is shared with the players.

Otherwise, we’re stuck trying to point to your ideas without the language to do so.

What you're asking me to do is to use language that you approve of to describe my game. But why would I do that? Would you?

If I said to you that I find living world to be a vague and unclear term... please come up with another term that accurately summarizes your preferred play style... you wouldn't agree to do so, and nor should you if you don't actually agree.

If needed, you could always say "player-directed as hawkeyefan has described it", I suppose... it acknowledges that it's specifically my take on the idea of player-driven play and that may not match yours or others' ideas on the topic.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not sure that I'm entirely following you here. But of course it matters. In the situation I framed in #4028, all of that, up to walking into his rival's room to take the corpse could be free play, the same as it would be in many other games. Aedhros and Thoth's players would declare actions and have their little dudes say things, and the GM would respond with descriptions or by playing NPCs and other narration until there's something at stake. And then we'd roll the dice in accordance with the rules of the game, same as any other RPG.

BW moves the trigger a little bit (in an old Reddit AMA, Crane designed it in part to create a game that reigned in some GMing habits he has and wasn't best fond of), and it has some different assumptions baked in that have filtered down into the community at large since the publication of BW Revised (say yes or roll the dice, let it ride, intent/task resolution). It also has an implicit setting that informs its mechanics -- BW games take place in a setting where characters hesitate before murdering the innkeeper in cold blood, BW sorcery and miracles work differently than each other, and so on.

I took a look at the play reports you posted and a few things stood out to me. One was that Si Juk is now immune to persuasion which I point out because as far as I can tell it means that before that there could be circumstances where he had no control over what their character was thinking. In part 3, Si Juk failed a roll so had a dream. The GM narrated what it looked like. There were a couple of checks for things like torches, similar I assume to skill checks in D&D. It wasn't clear how difficulty is determined, when checks are required or who decides.

In part 4 we finally get into some interaction where the player has to request RP. The description was "Rich finally started yelling, 'No! Can I roleplay first? Can I? Can I ****ing roleplay first? Huh?'" But as far as I can tell, this situation wasn't really resolved in any way because the player refused a battle of wits. If they had done a battle of wits (which is what the GM initially proposed), would what Sin Juk said have made any difference at all? In this, and in the other example there is some role playing and information gathering but anything major that happens comes down to a check.

Compare that to a situation I hit recently. The characters were talking to a military officer. The officer is arrogant and in particular didn't like several of the characters because of who their parents were and some of the things they had done. So he was antagonistic and, in particular, when a character brought up the heritage in a "Do you know who we are" sort of way he became downright insulting. One of the characters slapped him, the only reason they weren't arrested was because the officer had no official authority because of where they were. But the result is that the officer now downright hates them, has an excuse to persecute them further if given the chance, and they are no longer allowed back in their home town where the characters are from.

None of that involved dice rolls, as DM I would never tell the player to roll to see the reaction of the the character. There was no duel or mechanical resolution of the situation. It's still a major event as far as the campaign is concerned. Sometimes there will be dice rolling in a situation like this for NPC reactions but in this case the officer's responses based on their personality and goals was never really in question.

To draw a correlation to D&D, the feel I get is that it's like a combat encounter where the player can add flavor to the game with descriptions and flair, but the important actions are all handled by dice rolls. That description and flair can add to the game but it has no impact on the outcome of the encounter.

 

[TwoSix]

To draw a correlation to D&D, the feel I get is that it's like a combat encounter where the player can add flavor to the game with descriptions and flair, but the important actions are all handled by dice rolls. That description and flair can add to the game but it has no impact on the outcome of the encounter.

Well, yea. There’s only three ways to decide the outcome of what happens in an encounter in a roleplaying game.

1) The GM decides.
2) The player decides.
3) A resolution method (dice, cards, Jenga towers, etc.) decides.

The rules of a game tell us when and where to do each of those three things. They also arbitrate the limitations on 1) and 2), and the processes to use for 3).