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

[Old Fezziwig]

Re the bolded:

What this would seem to prevent, or at least very strongly discourage, is the players in-character from distracting themselves with red herrings of their own invention.

Put another way, if the players have somehow convinced themselves that getting those Plans(TM) is the most important thing in the world right now even if in fact those plans are only tangential at best to their goals and thus the plans are a low-stakes thing, why not just let them play it out anyway even if it takes all night?

The bolded, as worded, almost seems to suggest gently leading them by the nose past the low-stakes stuff.

You have me mistaken, I'm not suggesting being gentle about it at all.

More seriously, if the players have convinced themselves such as you've described, we can play that, but I'm going to expect Beliefs to be written about the plans, and we're going to play a game about pursuing the wrong damn thing at the expense of what's really important, at least for a while (a session, more, whatever?). BW will stagnate entirely and the reward cycle will break down if players don't pursue their Beliefs, so we'd have to rewrite them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are sometimes limitations put on autonomy or carrots or sticks for particular actions, but these come as a consequence for decisions that are made with clear eyes. What we get in exchange is the ability to impact the setting in reliable ways. That autonomy is wagered for irrevocable change in the same way that entering a combat in D&D is wagering the ultimate loss of autonomy for the ability to eliminate a threat and take its treasure.

If I do not want to risk my character in Apocalypse Keys falling further into Ruin then I do not declare actions that risk that. If I don't want to risk bodily harm in Apocalypse World I do not declare actions that would trigger Go Aggro or Seize by Force.

I consider it a net gain in agency, but then I weigh the ability to reliably impact the shared fiction more than autonomy, especially autonomy above and beyond what we have in real life.

If I lose an argument in real life, that in and of of itself does not require me to acquiesce to the winner's desires. The autonomy of BW in this case does not meet with real life.

 

[The Firebird]

I don’t see how those examples display consistency. They’re mostly unrelated hypotheticals.

If you were in a game, how would you know the GM is being consistent in their adjudications? If there are unknown factors at play, how can you know? The criteria aren’t available to you.

You can't know. At a certain point the GM tells you they're doing their best and you have to choose if you want to trust them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How would this be resolved?

If it takes (say) an hour or two of play time at the table, where the player is just moving through scenes framed by the GM based on the GM's ideas about the guardhouse, who knows the schedule, etc, and the player is declaring low-risk, low-stakes actions to try and prompt the next scene so that, eventually, the GM will present the outcome of the PC learns the scheduled - then, that it the sort of play that I regard as highly GM-driven. I mean, we're talking about an extended episode of play where all the fiction comes from the GM, and the player is just receiving it.

The player is asking for it, and taking action to get it. To me, that pretty much standard play, and plenty player driven for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If I lose an argument in real life, that in and of of itself does not require me to acquiesce to the winner's desires. The autonomy of BW in this case does not meet with real life.

You sir are the Giles Corey of flamewar threads

 

[AlViking]

It’s a matter of play focus.

Some games want the character’s determination or courage or loyalty or whatever other trait to be tested. Depending on the game, these traits may be highlighted in some way by the player as what they want to learn about in play.

If you want to learn if your character is hard enough to kill, then that’s something you want to learn about in play… you want there to be doubt about it. Allowing it to simply be player choice takes away the doubt.

Just like combat is uncertain… because there are dice rolls and we don’t just choose who wins.

Leaving it up to a roll of dice doesn't mean I "learn" anything other than I rolled under or over the check. I'm glad it works for you but it wouldn't mean anything to me.

Just another example that we want different things out of our game time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not? Is this based on your extensive reading of the rules of the game, and your experience of play?

Not if they lose the argument, according to the example I read. You lose the battle of wits, your choice to go against the winner's wishes is curtailed.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

If I lose an argument in real life, that in and of of itself does not require me to acquiesce to the winner's desires. The autonomy of BW in this case does not meet with real life.

I don't know. I don't think it's that uncommon. If I lose an argument at work, I might have to go along with whatever the decision is, but I still might think it's nonsense and a bad idea. And I'm having a hard time thinking of arguments that are settled but remain a stalemate, such that someone won and I'm not subject to that result. Setting this aside, though, BW is a game, not real life, and it's making accommodations for what Crane thinks makes for better play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is getting bizarre. I mean, do we think we can seriously discuss film-making without thinking about what (say) Scorsese or Almodovar has to say? Are Jeremy Crawford and Matt Colville the only approved commentators on RPG design and play?

I've discussed film-making without talking about either. And I've engaged in years of discussion about game design without quoting anybody outside of the thread. But that's not the point. I'm just not a fan of the man's design philosophy, and by extension the games he has created and/or influenced. But that's just me. Quote him all you want.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Not if they lose the argument, according to the example I read. You lose the battle of wits, your choice to go against the winner's wishes is curtailed.

For the time being. Whatever was at stake in that scene has been decided, and in the short run, that's what's happening. But it's not done and dusted for all time. Another example from the text: "A horse trader who lost a haggling duel will sell his destrier for a lower price, but he'll regret itr later. He might harbor quite a bit of resentment towards the silver-tongued rascal who bedeviled him. He may even outright refuse to sell to him in the future!" (BWGR 400).