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

[Bedrockgames]

Realism isn't really the cause... because as the author of the situation, a GM can select whatever realistic conditions they want.

So, when the character is facing the cliff face that he's going to climb... the GM can tell the player the relevant information under the very plausible idea that the character can discern this information. They can also withhold the information under the very plausible idea that the character cannot discern the information. The GM determines what's plausible or realistic in this case, and it could be either one.

So, setting that aside, what are the other factors that factor into his decision? That's what I think is relevant and interesting, and has something to say about GMing technique.

But the point is the GM, at least in OSR play and in sandbox and a lot of what else is being discussed here, makes this decision based on what they think the player would know from the vantage point they have. That might be more or less generous depending on the situation. And like I said, this is such an uncontested issue at any table I have been at. If there is any question it is handled with Q&A. People are on teh same page. The GM is not out to screw anyone. The GM is simply trying to give them a 'realistic' POV of the situation. And the idea is if they can see it, they tell them what they see. Go back and look at the passages I quoted from the OS Primer again. It explains very clearly how information is obtained through interaction with the environment, and through questioning. If part of the point is to challenge player skill, you don't want to just hand them information they wouldn't have. Generally this means you won't be actively concealing things, unless there is reason for those things not to be known due to POV or a lack of interaction.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: internal character development during play along the "Am I really a murderer?" lines:

I have a few questions:


To what degree is the group aware of this happening? They had an impact on you but was this also a big deal, source of fun, for the group as a whole or was it more stuff that was meaningful to you.

Highly variable depending on situation and circumstance.

How often does this stuff occur? Is it several times a session, once every few sessions, once in a blue moon?

For me, fairly rare; but it really depends on the character(s) I'm playing at the time. A less-emotional character is far less likely to have anything like this (visibly) happen than one who wears its emotions on its sleeves, but even then unexpected things can occur. ('ve a good story of such but it'd fill a few screens with text to tell it, so I'll spare you all...)

How important is it to play? Good when it happens but not something you seek out or a fundamental part of play or something else.

If-when it happens, it happens; and the good-bad of it for me-as-player varies by situation. The in-fiction good or bad, if any, might not manifest until well after the fact.

Related to the above, do you want more of it or is ok for it to just happen when it happens?

Happens when it happens, and organically rather than externally forced, is enough for me.

Another factor is how long this process might take. For me-as-player, major changes in character (be they intentional on my part or just coming about as a result of play) sometimes take real-world years from start to finish. A lot of the play examples posted seem to have such changes taking place within a very short time or even a single incident, which to me isn't what I'm after.

 

[Faolyn]

This is silly. I mean, by all means play a game which focuses on what you want it to. I'm pretty sure something along these lines might happen in Monster Hearts. I don't think it would be typical of BW, unless we're dealing with a PC with some unusual beliefs. My response was to question why you bring up some specific thing like this, it doesn't seem like there's a point here.

Why is it silly? More specifically, why is that silly but having the game arbitrarily decide a PC is too shaken to kill someone not silly?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Too difficult. Please mind control me into a choice, please.

Duel of Wits!

Statement of purpose for @TwoSix : "I will cuddle all the kittens and puppies."

Statement of purpose for Fezziwictor the Unreasonable, Master of the Baby Animal Pens in the Caves of Doom: "You will snuggle one kitten or one puppy. No one can cuddle all of them!"

 

[Lanefan]

It would seem to me that you are placing a priority on persistent immersion in character. That you're perfectly happy with limitations on player agency based on this aspect of play. You don't mind the GM withholding information from you as a player if it's based on the perceived limit of the character's knowledge.

Guilty as charged, y'r honour, and without remorse!

 

[Lanefan]

Duel of Wits!

Statement of purpose for TwoSix: "I will cuddle all the kittens and puppies."

Statement of purpose for Fezziwictor the Unreasonable, Master of the Baby Animal Pens in the Caves of Doom: "You will snuggle one kitten or one puppy. No one can cuddle all of them!"

Shouldn't that be a Duel of Kits?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Shouldn't that be a Duel of Kits?

(1) Dammit. Well done.
(2) Only if it's baby cats and baby foxes.

 

[SableWyvern]

What about information a character might have? Who decides if something is a yes, no, or maybe as far as a character (and therefore a player) knowing it?

This a broad, vague question. I don't think you should surprised to learn that my answer is that it's context dependent and very similar to the answers I've already provided.

Do you think you as a GM tend to offer sufficient information to your players to match or at least approximate what a character would be aware of in their situation?

Is this a rhetorical question? Is there any possibility, after this entire thread, where I've been saying post after post that it is possible to provide sufficient information, that I'm going to randomly turn around and say that I fail to provide sufficient informatin for this mode of play to work?

You mention that such information should be "sufficient"... but again, there's a range there, no?

Probably, I guess?

That depends on which kind of play you're talking about. I think what exactly constitutes player-driven play is a bit in doubt. Or, at the very least, that there are varying degrees of it across different types of play.

Yes, there are all sorts of different types of valid play. It should be self-evident that the type of play I'm referring to in my response to you is the on I'm being asked to defend. I have added lengthy disclaimers along this line to multiple posts reiterating this. I am not going to add such a paragraph to every single post I make.

Are you against the GM saying to you "you can tell this climb is going to be difficult just from looking at the rock face... this will be a DC20 climb" or "the way his eyes dart back and forth, you know he's lying" or "while you're in line to enter the castle, there's a scuffle up ahead... the guards club someone and haul him away, then one of them turns to the rest of the crowd and shouts 'that's what happens if you try to bribe your way inside the walls'... you guys are gonna need to come up with another plan"?

All of those scenarios seem potentially fine, depending on context.

These are all plausible and consistent and make sense in the game world. These are all examples of the GM simply offering the details needed for a player to deal with the situation. I would expect most people to be perfectly fine with them. That this approach makes sense.

Seems fair.

Taking a different approach... not offering the information... that's a choice. And yes, it's a preference. There's nothing wrong with it as far as preferences go... but it has an impact on player agency. Hence why I've been advocating for GMs to be aware of these choices they make and the impact it has on play.

Who has been claiming GMs should be ignorant of the choices they make or the impact their choices have on play?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But the point is the GM, at least in OSR play and in sandbox and a lot of what else is being discussed here, makes this decision based on what they think the player would know from the vantage point they have. That might be more or less generous depending on the situation. And like I said, this is such an uncontested issue at any table I have been at. If there is any question it is handled with Q&A. People are on teh same page. The GM is not out to screw anyone. The GM is simply trying to give them a 'realistic' POV of the situation. And the idea is if they can see it, they tell them what they see. Go back and look at the passages I quoted from the OS Primer again. It explains very clearly how information is obtained through interaction with the environment, and through questioning. If part of the point is to challenge player skill, you don't want to just hand them information they wouldn't have. Generally this means you won't be actively concealing things, unless there is reason for those things not to be known due to POV or a lack of interaction.

Well, I've actually seen this sort of thing be highly contentious, even to the point of exploding a couple of games.

 

[Campbell]

Why are we evaluating the Burning Wheel Steel mechanic in terms of the sorts of fiction D&D is utilized to play. No one has suggested importing it. Burning Wheel is not a game designed for the sort of action-adventure heroics being discussed. It's rather brutal combat and healing mechanics would also be a rather poor fit.