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

[The Firebird]

His method for advocating his agenda feels particularly pushy to me, and insulting to those who disagree with him.

Everyone has a viewpoint. Not everyone says "If you want to accomplish anything, do as I say".

 

[Campbell]

Even if, it's as @Old Fezziwig claims, it's just that you "lost the argument" and didn't actually have your thoughts changed, I find it super disturbing that this is a thing that happens in PC vs. PC conflict.

Why is it disturbing if we are all opting into it and trust each other? A game does not have to be a fit for every person or every group. It's obvious that you want something different than people who enjoy Burning Wheel, but that does not make the sort of play model where we are actively testing and changing our beliefs and we have the same sort of internal struggles as we have in real life disturbing.

 

[TwoSix]

I spend a lot of time in threads with @pemerton , who seems to really enjoy bringing him out.

A good portion of what I know about RP I’ve learned from @pemerton. It’s a good club to be in!

 

[Faolyn]

Quoting these together because (I think) my response to each is kind of related, and I'm particularly responding to the parts I've bolded.

@Faolyn -- yeah, we're clearly diverging in preferences here. For me, the crux of RPGing is the point where I no longer get to say what's happening with character. Can my little dude do what I want him to do? Will he be successful? My personal interest in being both the arbiter of my little dude's intentions and the opposition to them (internal or external) is approaching nil -- for me, that sort of play often falls flat, and it's been a big part of why I find solo games excruciatingly boring. So I don't see the hesitation as a loss of autonomy, but a reframing of it. I see it as akin to being dealt a new hand of cards to play. I've played my current hand as best as I can, and now I'm going to play a new hand that I've just been dealt.

@Micah Sweet -- rules in RPGs frequently decide "your character can't do that" or "your character fails to do this." I'm not sure why steeling oneself to attempt murder should necessarily be different than preparing oneself to climb a wall. Maybe put another way, if a game is designed to support it, I don't see a meaningful difference between my little dude's physical engagement with his external world and his emotional or intellectual engagement with his internal world. I think the adjudication and structure of the game need to be principled (e.g., the Steel rules in BW work the same way as everything else -- for the dice to come into play, something has to be at stake), but I'm open to a lot of things if that's established.

For me, there's a huge difference between my character's physical or even mental abilities and me, personally, being able to control my character.

Maybe my character can't physically climb a wall, but I shouldn't be told that I'm not allowed to even try.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Are you allowed to have a "duel of wits" without actually having a Duel of Wits? Some of the things @pemerton has said, and some of the things I've seen online, suggest that no. You have to roll the dice.

So, are two PCs allowed to RP out a conflict without having to roll the dice? What about a PC and an NPC?

Not in BW. If there's something at stake, a conflict if you will, the dice have to come out or one party has to decline to engage in the argument.

Also, question: @Old Fezziwig said that losing a Duel of Wits doesn't alter your thinking. Here you're saying that you can be convinced to leave the way you come. How does that work? In D&D, the PCs would roll a Charisma skill against either a target number or as a contested check. If the PCs didn't roll high enough and the border guard stayed firm, the PCs would then have a choice: they could leave the way they came, they could wait for another guard and try again, they could try to sneak past the guard or find another way to get over the border, they could kill the guard, and so on.

So in a BW Duel of Wits, I'm assuming that my side is "let me pass" and the guard's side is "go back the way you came." If I lose the Duel of Wits, can I choose to wait for another guard and try again, try to sneak past the guard, or kill the guard?

Let it Ride, which is one of the base assumptions in BW, means that we don't roll again for the same stakes. So there's no roll to convince another guard. We've already done that. Trying a different tactic (sneaking past, killing the guard, etc.) is absolutely acceptable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not a claim, it's actually in the rules! Not in the free rules, but in the full text: "Remember that these rules don't dictate reality or true feelings. They only dictate public performance and acknowledgement of the 'truth'" (BWGR 399) and "If a player is particularly open-minded, he can, of course, have his character change his mind when and as he chooses. Being convinced of the merit of an argument is an acceptable result of these mechanics, but it is not a hard and fast rule" (BWGR 400).

Whether this is "super disturbing," I'll leave to you and others. It solves problems I have seen at tables in play.

What kinds of problems require solutions that force PC behavior?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

For me, there's a huge difference between my character's physical or even mental abilities and me, personally, being able to control my character.

Maybe my character can't physically climb a wall, but I shouldn't be told that I'm not allowed to even try.

Okay, that's fine. I expected and am willing to accept we don't agree.

 

[Faolyn]

Why is it disturbing if we are all opting into it and trust each other? A game does not have to be a fit for every person or every group. It's obvious that you want something different than people who enjoy Burning Wheel, but that does not make the sort of play model where we are actively testing and changing our beliefs and we have the same sort of internal struggles as we have in real life disturbing.

I find it disturbing that the game's mechanics can change my character's mind for me.

I am allowed to find it disturbing, even if you do not.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

What kinds of problems require solutions that force PC behavior?

I think I've established that I don't see these rules as forcing PC behavior. For me, they move play along. I have a low threshold for participating in or observing RPed arguments where neither party has a clear end-game and/or is willing to back down from their assumptions, whether it's GM-player or player-player.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not in BW. If there's something at stake, a conflict if you will, the dice have to come out or one party has to decline to engage in the argument.


Let it Ride, which is one of the base assumptions in BW, means that we don't roll again for the same stakes. So there's no roll to convince another guard. We've already done that. Trying a different tactic (sneaking past, killing the guard, etc.) is absolutely acceptable.

These sort of restrictions would be immediately flagged as not making any sense in relation to the logic of the setting by my players (and me as well, obviously). I don't see any group I've played who would be ok with PC action being constrained in this way. Since I know there are serious constraints on the GM as well in this game, the whole thing feels like a solid no-go from my perspective.