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

[Old Fezziwig]

So how would - or could - BW handle this hypothetical but not-at-all-unheard-of situation:

My character is Jocasta. For these purposes let's say her stated goal-belief-etc. is to (1) do a bunch of honourable deeds and then (2) make sure the world knows about them, in order to restore some dignity to her disgraced family name. But, she's also a little flighty...

In course of doing one of these honourable deeds she rescues an otherwise-irrelevant NPC and - maybe due to me-as-player whim, maybe due to me-as-player quietly rolling 100 on d% to see what I think of this guy, or whatever - Jocasta falls head over heels in love with him and, due to this, decides that while her initial goals etc. haven't changed they can bloody well wait while (on returning to town) she chases this guy to see where things might go.

In other words, both in and out of character I've completely distracted myself from what I was previously doing and sent play (maybe dragging the party with me, maybe not, depending on how they react) in a whole new direction that (one hopes!) involves much less or even zero conflict. And while I-as-player maybe don't need or want to play out every word she says to her new crush, I'd like things resolved in somewhat more detail than a single "does he fall for you or not" die roll.

Over to you, GM - what happens next?

So I think there are a couple things that we'd need to frame out here for this to be useful, so please bear with me.

Jocasta has three beliefs (all BW characters have at least three). There's been a lot of digital ink spilled about how to frame them, but one way to do it is as follows:

(1) a Fate mine. Fate's a type of meta-currency in BW that allows you to modify rolls and is a necessary resource for doing certain things in advancement, and you can acquire it by playing your Beliefs. We don't need to get into more detail than that; it's sufficient to say you want Fate, and you want a means of getting it. "I will be famous for my deeds!" is a pretty good Belief for this. You can hit it all day long in play.
(2) one about a long term goal that's pointed at the current situation. This is not the best belief, but it'll work for our purposes: "Lanefania needs heroes, and I'll start by ridding it of Old Fezziwig and his bandits."
(3) usually about one of the other characters and their goals, but it could be a separate goal, too. Perhaps this one puts different pressure on Jocasta to not stick around. "It's far away, but I must go across the sea to Nafenalia for the Grand Tournament next year!"

Let's say, that in the course of handling Old Fezziwig and his bandits, Jocasta meets the tavern keeper Johann, and they've got a real good rapport. He's energetic, handsome, competent, etc. Maybe he picks up a shield and a table leg and helps out in the fighting, maybe he's the one who leads the other villagers out of the Caves of Doom, past the baby animal pens, and back into the village while Jocasta gives Old Fezziwig what for.

I think I've said this before, but BW doesn't do idle distractions, and the system's going to come into play. So maybe because of a comment you've made out of character or something that happens in play after Old Fezziwig's demise (he's popped up in other scenes involving other players' goals and built some relationships) that indicates you're open to this, or maybe just because Jocasta has the Romantic trait, I frame a scene before Jocasta heads to the coast to get passage to Nafenalia where Johann says, "hey...stay."

Jocasta really wants to knock some heads together at the Grand Tourney (it's her Belief!), and maybe I'm expecting you as her player to play up the conflict, we'll have a Duel of Wits in game, and see what happens. And maybe you expect that, too, as a player, and we have some back and forth about it (in character), but when I say, "Okay, we need to settle this. It's a Duel of Wits, Lanefan, and his statement of purpose is 'Stay with me,'" you give in and say, "okay." So Jocasta misses her boat, and she stays for the harvest. (We could do this as a Duel of Wits, too, but players can always give before we roll dice and just accept the terms proposed.)

At this point, I'd expect you to rewrite your beliefs to reflect the new situation, definitely a revision to #3 but maybe to #2, too. BW doesn't do no conflict, but we can do different conflict. Is Jocasta going to stay in town with Johann? Will she go to Nafenalia next year? Does anything change about Lanefania needing heroes? And subsequent scenes would put pressure on the new beliefs. Maybe word of Jocasta's heroic dispatch of Old Fezziwig has reached the Duke, and he sends his men to town. You know, "Lanefania needs heroes, and you're the woman for us. The kobolds are dying, come save them!" Maybe she refuses, but the Duke's a tyrant, and now the village is under threat again.

I could go on, but I think this is enough?

 

[zakael19]

So I think there are a couple things that we'd need to frame out here for this to be useful, so please bear with me.

Jocasta has three beliefs (all BW characters have at least three). There's been a lot of digital ink spilled about how to frame them, but one way to do it is as follows:

(1) a Fate mine. Fate's a type of meta-currency in BW that allows you to modify rolls and is a necessary resource for doing certain things in advancement, and you can acquire it by playing your Beliefs. We don't need to get into more detail than that; it's sufficient to say you want Fate, and you want a means of getting it. "I will be famous for my deeds!" is a pretty good Belief for this. You can hit it al day long in play.
(2) one about a long term goal that's pointed at the current situation. This is not the best belief, but it'll work for our purposes: "Lanefania needs heroes, and I'll start by ridding it of Old Fezziwig and his bandits."
(3) usually about one of the other characters and their goals, but it could be a separate goal, too. Perhaps this one puts different pressure on Jocasta to not stick around. "It's far away, but I must go across the sea to Nafenalia for the Grand Tournament next year!"

Let's say, that in the course of handling Old Fezziwig and his bandits, Jocasta meets the tavern keeper Johann, and they've got a real good rapport. He's energetic, handsome, competent, etc. Maybe he picks up a shield and a table leg and helps out in the fighting, maybe he's the one who leads the other villagers out of the Caves of Doom, past the baby animal pens, and back into the village while Jocasta gives Old Fezziwig what for.

I think I've said this before, but BW doesn't do idle distractions, and the systems going to come into play. So maybe because of a comment you've made out of character or something that happens in play after Old Fezziwig's demise (he's popped up in other scenes involving other players' goals and built some relationships) that indicates you're open to this, or maybe just because Jocasta has the Romantic trait, I frame a scene before Jocasta heads to the coast to get passage to Nafenalia where Johann says, "hey...stay."

Jocasta really wants to knock some heads together at the Grand Tourney (it's her Belief!), and maybe I'm expecting you as her player to play up the conflict, we'll have a Duel of Wits in game, and see what happens. And maybe you expect that, too, as a player, and we have some back and forth about it (in character), but when I say, "Okay, we need to settle this. It's a Duel of Wits, Lanefan, and his statement of purpose is 'Stay with me,'" you give in and say, "okay." So Jocasta misses her boat, and she stays for the harvest. (We could do this as a Duel of Wits, too, but players can always give before we roll dice and just accept the terms proposed.)

At this point, I'd expect you to rewrite your beliefs to reflect the new situation, definitely a revision to #3 but maybe to #2, too. BW doesn't do no conflict, but we can do different conflict. Is Jocasta going to stay in town with Johann? Will she go to Nafenalia next year? Does anything change about Lanefania needing heroes? And subsequent scenes would put pressure on the new beliefs. Maybe word of Jocasta's heroic dispatch of Old Fezziwig has reached the Duke, and he sends his men to town. You know, "Lanefania needs heroes, and you're the woman for us. The kobolds are dying, come save them!" Maybe she refuses, but the Duke's a tyrant, and now the village is under threat again.

I could go on, but I think this is enough?

I was going to reply with a simple “sounds to me like she changed her Belief(s)” but I figured I’d let the actual BW players show up, lol.

And, honestly, the genre fiction is full of “adventurer/warrior/etc settles down because of love but then bad things happen” and I could see this being some really cool play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Now we’re getting into the “all PCs could ride until the Ride skill was introduced” level of stuff. Most TTRPGs about adventuring say something like “assume the characters are competent adventurers” in there. I generally prefer the take that stuff like this is warranted when it’s like near-supernatural levels of scaling impossible surfaces. If anything, we’re testing Time (or ability to climb fast enough to get away from danger).

Add environmental factors in and maybe we have a different scenario (rain, ice, etc).

Action movie physics come in when appropriate. That isn't always in my games.

Now, if the game operates under the "all PCs have basic climbing knowledge" paradigm, then so be it.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

That's why I specified in my first post on the topic:


And it is analogous because in various people's posts about the game, people would "naturally" hesitate before killing someone. Well, some people "naturally" fall in lust at first sight. Etc.

In case you're not getting it, I'm actually talking about the loss of player agency here, not wondering if BW has rules for sexytimes or saying that it should.

Last things first, I think I've established that I don't see this as a loss of player agency. And I didn't think you were asking about whether BW has rules for sexytimes. I suppose it does as much as any other game (and less than Apocalypse World, which for all its virtues has always struck me as awkwardly horny), but we can leave that to individual tables.

I thought I had addressed this, but maybe I haven't and only did in my head or maybe you missed it in waves at the thread all this -- who knows? But this is a process issue. BW's looking for action declarations with intents and tasks, and it doesn't have the GM calling for rolls to determine things about characters or their mental states. I do see how the situations are analogous in the real world -- these are things that we won't be able to control, but I don't think I've said anything about realism in my posts.

If we're getting to the point where I say my little dude strangles the innkeeper to death. My intent is to murder the innkeeper, the task is strangling, and the scene is such that this is both a BFD and we're not in combat, then the roll is the Steel test. That's what determines whether my little dude can do the deed. It's man vs self. That's our conflict here.

If the scene is such that my little dude is walking down the street, and the GM calls for a roll to determine if my little dude falls in love with Jocasta the Hero absent any action declaration on my part, that's a misplay. It's outside the way the game works. The closest we could probably come to this is having my little dude have a belief about not falling in love and framing conflicts around it (cf., my screwball comedy scenario in #4904). But the actual act of falling in love being subject to a dice roll in game, like some sort of saving throw or resistance roll, isn't something that BW provides for passively.

The two execptions that have occurred to me as I write this:

(1) For a roll being called for by the GM, there might be a situation where (we'll take appropriate beliefs driving our scene framing as a given because this is already too long) my little dude wants nothing more than to catch a vision of Jocasta the Hero, who is our game's equivalent of Helen of Troy. He is deeply enamored of her from afar, and his beliefs are all to set him for that moment. Maybe he has a trait of Shy or Tongue-Tied or maybe she's just that beautiful, but when he's finally about to meet her, he catches a glimpse of her hair or her smile, but before he sees more than that, the GM calls for a Steel test or else my little dude swoons. It's all too much! Man vs self again. I don't think it would be a misplay here because the stakes are so high, and it's well established in play.

(2) The other could be if a character had a character trait like Emophiliac (not in the game, but easy to imagine). That would be a flag on the sheet that the player expected to be falling in love with all sorts of different people in game and would be a lever I could pull as GM.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I was going to reply with a simple “sounds to me like she changed her Belief(s)” but I figured I’d let the actual BW players show up, lol.

And, honestly, the genre fiction is full of “adventurer/warrior/etc settles down because of love but then bad things happen” and I could see this being some really cool play.

We could go full on cozy/slice of life, too, if we liked and have issues with rats in the grain and poor weather, etc. It's not where I'm inclined to go, and I think Lanefan's post suggested adventuring being in the future. But BW does intimacy and small scope really well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Knowledge is not automatic. In my experience, sometimes you can't tell how easy or difficult it is to climb a cliff so I have no issue with the idea that it might not be apparent to a character. Yes, I'm the author of this scenario and I may tell the player that they can't tell for many reasons. But it's become apparent that no explanation or reason on my part will matter.

Matter for who?

The reason I am asking is just to get examples of the bolded, and then to look at how that impacts play.

But this is all just for the sake of discussion. It only matters for that purpose, unless someone takes away something new from the discussion.

All that really matters is that as a DM I'm making decisions all the time so that the players have a fun and engaging world to interact with. Sometimes that includes not knowing exact details on how hard or easy it will be to overcome an obstacle. If they decide to climb that metaphorical cliff it may work and it may not. It adds tension to the game which, used in moderation, is fun. It's worked well for me and my players for decades now.

Yes, this is definitely all that really matters. I'm not trying to tell you you're doing anything wrong. I'm simply explaining my thoughts and reasoning on this stuff.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You don't think so. Those on the other side of this discussion seem to understand what we mean by it. Again, if this doesn't help you in adjudicating a game. That is reasonable. But plenty of people find it a helpful principle

Again, it's not a matter of what one thinks or doesn't think.

"Why did you buy that specific soup instead of this other specific soup?" cannot be answered by "I am buying soup." Yes! We know you are buying soup. I am asking what differentiates soup A from soup B, and the answer is...because it's soup? That's not an answer, they're both soup!

A criterion based on "it's soup, that's why I bought it" cannot differentiate between soup A and soup B. It can tell us why you bought soup instead of sandwich fixings, that's absolutely true. But it doesn't do one single thing about answering the difference between soup A and soup B.

Exactly the same thing applies when there are multiple paths which all already are realistic or can be made realistic. Hence, regardless of what "realistic" means, regardless of what standard you're using, if there are multiple realistic paths, something that isn't realism must be the differentiating factor. Otherwise, you'd be stuck, unable to choose except by randomness--which has already been expressly rejected for any amount of world-running in this context, outside of very narrow constraints (e.g. random monster encounters) which have extremely little to do with deciding what the world is or will be.

Except we have. Rather endlessly. We have clarified exactly what we mean. We have responded with arguments (many of which go unanswered) and we keep getting the same points brought up. At a certain point, if our arguments don't convince you, that is totally fair. But hammering away like this and simply not agreeing to disagree is not getting us anywhere. Our play styles are not on trial.

It's not about your playstyles. It's about your answer for why path A is chosen over path B, when path B is literally, in all possible ways, precisely and exactly as realistic as path A. (Except, of course, in most cases it isn't path A and path B, it's paths #000000 through #999999).

The one that is the most plausible of the two.

This still doesn't answer anything. Plausible why? Plausible how?

One is going to seem more plausible and realistic than the other.

That is not only not guaranteed, it is almost always not the case. There are many many ways, all of which are indistinguishably plausible and realistic. As has been pointed out, repeatedly. It is literally exactly as realistic to tell someone they can determine the difficulty of a climb, as to tell them they can't. It is just as realistic for someone to be able to tell that a guard is too loyal to bribe, as it is to tell them they don't know but can ask questions to find out, as it is to tell them they don't know and the only way to find out is to try (and thus possibly make an instant enemy), as it is to tell them they know they can be.

When all of these paths are literally exactly as realistic and as plausible as any other, how do you choose? What is your metric? What causes decision A instead of decision B? It can't be realism or plausibility because both of them are reasonable and both of them are plausible (mostly because "realistic" and "plausible" are such low bars as to not bar much of anything).

And you can have other considerations if you want (for example (for example you could go with "What is most plausible and most interesting"). That is up to you. But I think in a game where you are effectively challenging the player skill, you want to go with what you think is most plausible.

So...

Let me get this straight.

This whole thread, folks have been continuously rejecting things done for their interesting-ness. And now you're saying it's a perfectly valid thing to judge different options with? Is it then even remotely possible that something could be so incredibly interesting, it might be worth a small sacrifice in plausibility or realism if it's just, that, good?

Again you are using a straw man here. People have explained what they mean by realism. They have even shown how they can make decisions based on it. You don't accept it. You have every right not to accept it. But don't tell people they are dodging when they have answered your questions honestly and they are doing something they know works at their table. Again, our play style is not on trial. This is not an interrogation.

It IS NOT a strawman. A straw man is me attributing a position to someone they haven't taken. I haven't attributed any argument to anyone. I have asserted that the question has not been answered, because the answer given fails to address the distinction present.

The answer to the question, "Why did you choose realistic path A over realistic path B?" is not, and cannot ever be, "Because path A was realistic." They both are! That doesn't tell me what made path A better!

The answer to the question, "Why did you pick a blue Chevy over a blue Ford?" cannot be "Because it was blue", because both of them are blue. The answer to the question, "Why did you pick Reese's over Twizzlers?" cannot be "Because it was candy", because both of them are candy. You cannot use a trait that two things both possess as a reason for why you chose one of them and not the other--it literally doesn't answer the question.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Does the PC have any training in climbing? Any particular in-fiction reason why they would be able to make an accurate assessment? If yes, I would likely give them the information. If no, probably not, or more vaguely (not a big fan of giving out DC numbers).

That's what I base these sorts of decision on: the fictional situation, to the best of my understanding. If I really can't use that information to help with my ruling at all (a pretty rare situation), I would likely either give the info or request a roll of some kind, but the fiction is always my top priority and almost always applies.

Okay... I always give out DCs or Target Numbers in games that use them. Again, I want the player informed. I see no reason to withhold that information other than keeping them less informed.

Aside from that, training in climbing is an understandable trait that may matter. I was kind of approaching it with the idea that would be factored into the DC, but either way, it's likely relevant.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, it's not a matter of what one thinks or doesn't think.

"Why did you buy that specific soup instead of this other specific soup?" cannot be answered by "I am buying soup." Yes! We know you are buying soup. I am asking what differentiates soup A from soup B, and the answer is...because it's soup? That's not an answer, they're both soup!

A criterion based on "it's soup, that's why I bought it" cannot differentiate between soup A and soup B. It can tell us why you bought soup instead of sandwich fixings, that's absolutely true. But it doesn't do one single thing about answering the difference between soup A and soup B.

Exactly the same thing applies when there are multiple paths which all already are realistic or can be made realistic. Hence, regardless of what "realistic" means, regardless of what standard you're using, if there are multiple realistic paths, something that isn't realism must be the differentiating factor. Otherwise, you'd be stuck, unable to choose except by randomness--which has already been expressly rejected for any amount of world-running in this context, outside of very narrow constraints (e.g. random monster encounters) which have extremely little to do with deciding what the world is or will be.


It's not about your playstyles. It's about your answer for why path A is chosen over path B, when path B is literally, in all possible ways, precisely and exactly as realistic as path A. (Except, of course, in most cases it isn't path A and path B, it's paths #000000 through #999999).


This still doesn't answer anything. Plausible why? Plausible how?


That is not only not guaranteed, it is almost always not the case. There are many many ways, all of which are indistinguishably plausible and realistic. As has been pointed out, repeatedly. It is literally exactly as realistic to tell someone they can determine the difficulty of a climb, as to tell them they can't. It is just as realistic for someone to be able to tell that a guard is too loyal to bribe, as it is to tell them they don't know but can ask questions to find out, as it is to tell them they don't know and the only way to find out is to try (and thus possibly make an instant enemy), as it is to tell them they know they can be.

When all of these paths are literally exactly as realistic and as plausible as any other, how do you choose? What is your metric? What causes decision A instead of decision B? It can't be realism or plausibility because both of them are reasonable and both of them are plausible (mostly because "realistic" and "plausible" are such low bars as to not bar much of anything).


So...

Let me get this straight.

This whole thread, folks have been continuously rejecting things done for their interesting-ness. And now you're saying it's a perfectly valid thing to judge different options with? Is it then even remotely possible that something could be so incredibly interesting, it might be worth a small sacrifice in plausibility or realism if it's just, that, good?


It IS NOT a strawman. A straw man is me attributing a position to someone they haven't taken. I haven't attributed any argument to anyone. I have asserted that the question has not been answered, because the answer given fails to address the distinction present.

The answer to the question, "Why did you choose realistic path A over realistic path B?" is not, and cannot ever be, "Because path A was realistic." They both are! That doesn't tell me what made path A better!

The answer to the question, "Why did you pick a blue Chevy over a blue Ford?" cannot be "Because it was blue", because both of them are blue. The answer to the question, "Why did you pick Reese's over Twizzlers?" cannot be "Because it was candy", because both of them are candy. You cannot use a trait that two things both possess as a reason for why you chose one of them and not the other--it literally doesn't answer the question.

@EzekielRaiden we have answered the questions pretty thoroughly but you just keep insisting we aren't. So I am not going to continue having a back and forth on those points as I feel I and others have in fact addressed them. I understand they aren't to your liking, but your responses just kind of feel like shouting to me at this point. We are going to have to agree to disagree

On things being interesting. People can use whatever criteria they want. Like I said earlier, most of my campaigns are drama+sandbox. Sometimes these conversations get confusing because I am defending a style of play. That isn't necessarily a full reflection of how I run my campaigns (but a lot of what I do comes out of OSR open world sandbox play so I can discuss the principles). When I make decisions, I am trying to bring a world to life, trying to make players feel like their actions matter, like the world and its people are bound by the same physics as them (i.e. the bad guy doesn't just show up because it is convenient, he has to walk from point A to point B just like the PCs do), bring NPCs to life like characters with their own goals and motivations, bring the wuxia genre to bear on play, and make sure the game is interesting and fun. I also have a lot of tools and techniques I use to help keep things flowing (grudge tables, shake up tables, encounter tables, etc).

But many posters here are talking about using realism/plausibility of the setting as a main priority and that is certainly achievable in my opinion. And it is definitely achievable in my experience in old school style play. If it doesn't work for you, that is fine. But many people are doing it with great success

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not really, but I'm not making my point very well and am starting to wonder if I can in this case.

We can make the speaking bits correlate but we can't make the combat bits correlate; we all know how to talk or communicate but we don't all know how to proficiently wield a longsword or cast a spell or even ride a horse.

I'm guessing that most of us would be able to do those things just as well as we'd be able to negotiate many life or death matters.

When we have to, yes; and there's no doubt that some elements of play absolutely need that mechanical abstraction.

Thing is, though, there's elements of play (mostly involving social encounters and roleplay) that don't need to be abstracted, and the question becomes one of whether or not to abstract them anyway. To this my answer is almost always go with non-abstraction where the choice exists.

Yes, but that's just an opinion. It's a preference.

Other people have other preferences. I don't care whether mechanics are necessary... I like playing a game, so I'm not averse to rules and processes for play.

I'll just say I don't like the concept in general in any milieu and stop there.

Well then maybe don't bring it up if you're not willing to get into it. Because it seems like you're absolutely dismissing whole swaths of play just because you'd not like the games. Seems pretty petty to me.

If you're keeping info from them that they should have had, that's a problem.

But what info "should" they have? Who determines that? Who determines what information is available? Or what information is gated with a roll or some other specific action?