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

[Pedantic]

But let’s never forget that “achieve via smart decisions” means “convincing the DM that was a smart decision.”

That would be a more compelling argument if there was an engine on the other side that offered the same gameplay loop without that flaw.

If we have to adopt an entirely different structure of game to avoid it, then you haven't actually offered a solution. Maybe it's a cursed problem, but pointing that out doesn't do anything to actually persuade players or designers to abandon their play/design goals.

 

[TwoSix]

It would be funny, except you are talking about a person with an extremely high set of standards for his role play, and who really does it with excellence. I strongly doubt many people here could hold a candle to @Manbearcat there. Great RP!

Can you imagine having your roleplay criticized by someone who doesn’t even know who Vincent Baker is?

 

[The Firebird]

Upthread you seemed hostile to "playing the GM". Here you seem to be advocating it!

I'm not suggesting that you're hypocritical. But there is clearly some distinction that is salient to you that I haven't picked up on.

If the GM is adjudicating the world consistently, you aren't playing the GM.

 

[AlViking]

OK. So are all GMs of Burning Wheel deemed unworthy from the outset? If not, then what's going on with this "abusive GM" stuff?

Some people don't trust GMs and think they need guardrails, limitations on what they can do or control. I don't and if I join a game I trust the GM until proven otherwise. Most of the time I've had issues (which has been rare) it's just been a GM the ran a style of game I didn't care for.

I never said all GMs of any game are untrustworthy or anything like that. I have no idea where you're getting that idea.

 

[pemerton]

Just to pick one section:

"The PCs' goal was to persuade Lareth that Fea-bella is, indeed, his sister, and hence that he should offer them hospitality; Lareth wanted to persuade them to assist him in his cult's mission.

The PCs won the conflict, with a strong roll (with multiple sixes opened up with Fate) on the second volley, which meant I didn't get to play Lareth's third volley Feint against Fea-bella's Defend! The players nevertheless owed a significant compromise: Lareth accepted the PCs' claim about his relationship to Fea-bella, but the PCs agreed that they would go to Nulb to persuade the pirates there - who raid the river vessels of the Theocracy of the Pale - to tithe to Lareth's cult."

This has nothing about what was actually said to convince Lareth, just about what was rolled.

The session was played over a year ago. I didn't note all the action declarations at the time, and don't recall them now. Given the compromise described, you can work out what some of them pertained to: stuff about Fea-bella and the evidence of her relationship to Lareth; stuff about the pirates, and tithing.

In terms of general methodology, I refer to this post of mine not far upthread:

To elaborate on this: What is said by the PC is task. It has to be appropriate to intent. And intent is what then shapes outcomes.

In a Duel of Wits, or the similar extended contests in Torchbearer, the way that task, intent and outcome are mediated is more complex (as one would expect in an extended resolution system). There are multiple tasks, and intent can (in my experience) unfold or precisify during the course of resolution; and - as you say - this all shapes the compromises that are reached at the end.

People who are just making up outcomes without regard to the tasks and their intents during resolution are like the Apocalypse World GMs John Harper blogged about, whose hard move is to have ninjas drop from the ceiling: The Mighty Atom They need to work on their play!

I'll also add - it seems strange, when you are saying that you have no knowledge of some process other than my account of it, to try and rebut my account by pointing to my account. I mean, you might ask "What did the players have their PCs say in the conflict with Lareth?" To which I would reply, as I have, "It was a year ago and my memory has faded." But to suggest that I'm lying or confused about my own play is weird.

Anyway, here's another couple of examples, of trickery contests:

They walked to the edge of town, where Megloss's house sits one an outcropping, looking out over the plains. I described the house: poorly kept, the equivalent of a stablem, built predominantly of timber, with smoke pouring from its chimney. Now Golin's Belief is that Explosive solutions are good solutions!, and Fea-bella has Alchemist 2, so they decided they would climb to the roof of the house and mess with the chimney and soot to force the occupants out. Unfortunately, the Dungeoneering check to get to the top failed - and I went for a twist: while they were standing about trying to work out the best way up - I explained that every time they thought they'd found a suitable way, they were worried the poor state of the timber wouldn't support them - the front door opened and Krystal the housekeeper came out to remonstrate with them, telling them to move along.

They opted, without much deliberation, for trickery, trying to persuade Krystal that they were building inspectors, worried about the state of the house and needing to come inside to further inspect it. Her response was along the lines of having never heard of such a thing, and they should get lost. (Or words to that effect.) Initial rolls for disposition gave them 5 points each. Krystal and Golin were both using Beginner's Luck, though Krystal was at one point able to use her Demanding Nature to insist that they leave.

So-so scripting and mediocre rolling meant that Krystal won, with only a minor compromise (for one hit point lost). Fea-bella also managed to rack up 4 checks, by breaking ties in Krystal's favour twice (but each time to no real benefit to Krystal, as they were Defence actions when she was still at full hit points). So the PCs had to leave, though they took as their compromise that they would have a very quick look inside before leaving.

They decided to return to the Tower of Stars, to try and loot the dome of whatever made it shine, using Lightness of Being. The weather roll once again yielded blustery winds, but then Trouble on the Road was a 6, which improved the weather to crisp and cold - no Toll penalty. Fea-bell's Toll was therefore 2 + 1 for Guide, or 3 in total. Golin's was 2, +2 for his armour - and after some discussion he decided not to take on a role.

Unfortunately the Pathfinder test failed - as I explained, it had been afternoon when they had to leave town and, travelling in the night, they had become confused and wandered into the Troll Fens! And this was only exacerbated by a Troll Haunt trying to trick them and lead them deeper into the swamp. I described the Troll to the players: gaunt yet hulking, with rubbery skin and covered in coarse hair, and preferring to dine on intelligent creatures over all other foods, for the dinner conversation!

The Troll's disposition for Trickery is 10; Fea-bella (being the one who got them lost) rolled her Manipulator 2, helped by Golin, and the PC's disposition was 5. The Troll equipped it's Stubborn Mind (+1D to defend in Trickery contests); Fea-bella wanted to goad it by asking Which is tastier, Elf or Dwarf? and I credited that as an improvised weapon; and Golin equipped a riddle, namely, Whose keys do I have in my pocket?

I scripted A/A/D for the Troll; then Fea-bella scripted M/A/F. I won the first opposed test, and reduced Fea-bella to 1 hp. Then it was Attack vs Attack: the Troll reduced both PCs to zero, but Golin's riddling question reduced it by 4 hp! So a significant compromise was owed: the Troll had indeed led the PCs deep into the Fens, but had itself returned to its lair to consult its Book of Riddles to find out whose keys, indeed, a wandering Dwarf might carry in its pockets.

 

[TwoSix]

That would be a more compelling argument if there was an engine on the other side that offered the same gameplay loop without that flaw.

If we have to adopt an entirely different structure of game to avoid it, then you haven't actually offered a solution. Maybe it's a cursed problem, but pointing that out doesn't do anything to actually persuade players or designers to abandon their play/design goals.

I don’t have a solution because there isn’t a problem. GM arbitrated games work, and in the hands of a proficient GM, can work well.

But let’s not obfuscate what it is. The GM is the final authority. A player’s plans are contingent on the GM agreeing they work. There’s no way to avoid that. So why not just own it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don’t have a solution because there isn’t a problem. GM arbitrated games work, and in the hands of a proficient GM, can work well.

But let’s not obfuscate what it is. The GM is the final authority. A player’s plans are contingent on the GM agreeing they work. There’s no way to avoid that. So why not just own it?

Because you are offering a very simple description of what is happening. And it evades talking about mechanics, which are going to come up even in a traditional sandbox with standard GM authority. But if the GM is striving towards being impartial, towards running the world in an even-handed way where things happen, not to thwart the PCs, but because the people in that world have goals they are perusing, where environments are built up as objective places, then the players plans are working because of a combination of luck and the choices they make.

 

[TwoSix]

If the GM is adjudicating the world consistently, you aren't playing the GM.

Clear point of delineation between viewpoints, then. If the DM is the final arbiter, you’re playing the DM. That’s the point of the game.

 

[TwoSix]

Because you are offering a very simple description of what is happening. And it evades talking about mechanics, which are going to come up even in a traditional sandbox with standard GM authority. But if the GM is striving towards being impartial, towards running the world in an even-handed way where things happen, not to thwart the PCs, but because the people in that world have goals they are perusing, where environments are built up as objective places, then the players plans are working because of a combination of luck and the choices they make.

Simple or not, the core is true. The rest is details.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Clear point of delineation between viewpoints, then. If the DM is the final arbiter, you’re playing the DM. That’s the point of the game.

The Gm is like a referee. That doesn't mean you are playing him. And as others have pointed out, the GM still has to answer to his group. If his choices are not making sense, if he is flagrantly ignoring rules, if his rulings are functioning in a way that doesn't make sense, if his world doesn't make sense, if his characters don't make sense, that is going to become a problem.