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

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, but if a GM chooses not to telegraph, what skill are you measuring? Isn't the telegraphing of danger serving the purpose to see how the players prepare themselves for the indicated danger?

If you take away the telegraphed info, then what's left?

Part of the skill is not rushing blindly when there is no visible sign of danger. If you are always telegraphing, play becomes too easy. You want to make it more life like. So you could say you are measuring their prudence or caution. But it isn’t purely just about skill. It is also about play where bad things can happen to characters because there are dangerous environments. Character death is a real possibility and it can happen with the luck of the draw sometimes. A lot of what players are doing is hedging their bets

It depends on the situation but if you don’t telegraph, they have to go by whatever else remains or cautiously Q&A some more. if it is the cliff face example, and there is a coating making it slick that isn’t instantly visible. The players may need to do something like closely examine the cliff face or even touch it to get that info. And there may even be situations where they still can’t get information about the danger (i.e. perhaps there is a magical effect and they don’t have detect magic). Still it is on the player to understand even a safe looking cliff, could he dangerous. Part of what makes this style of play fun is the potential lethality. And that can arise from hidden dangers

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, the system and rules matter quite a bit. My original point in this branch of the conversation, was that a GM should not just be concerned with the content of the fiction and its plausibility or consistency... though he should be thinking of those things... he also needs to be looking at things as a game and how it can be played.

Making subsystems that matter like gear, using telegraphing as a GMing technique... these are game concerns. Most people totally ignored them and were worried only about portraying the fiction.

I see it as a matter of priorities. My priority is setting logic and verisimilitude. How things play as a game is important, but secondary to my first concerns. This is why balance is less important to me, because I first want to make sure something is a reasonably accurate simulation before I wonder about its balance against other things.

 

[AlViking]

...


You could simply say that the NPC is a master knife fighter, and cannot be defeated, and so the PC loses.

If the characters are low level and they decide to try to fight an ancient red dragon I'd probably narrate the battle because they're going to lose. Meanwhile in social encounters there is value in the content of the encounter whether or not the characters are successful. That, and of course, the outcome of social encounters is not automatically predetermined just like every other encounter.

But good luck with the continued use of the extremes fallacy.

 

[AlViking]

They can. It's perhaps a less interesting choice than others but there isn't any issue with the GM deciding this. It certainly isn't railroading.

There are guards in real life that could not realistically be bribed. I don't understand why this is even a contentious possibility. That, and being able to bribe any random guard or bureaucrat with a known cost would be boring and unrealistic to me. Perhaps you can't bribe so maybe try deception, intimidation, blackmail, illusion, subterfuge or ... I don't know ... any number of creative options.

 

[Faolyn]

It's not arbitrary. Do I have the nerves of steel necessary to murder in cold blood is one of the thematic questions that Burning Wheel is intended to raise.

If you don't think that's an interesting question, then don't use the Steel subsystem.

I think that's a fascinating question that should be left up to the player to answer, not left up to a die roll to say whether I can or not.

I just read a PbtA/Belonging Outside Belonging game called Masks of the Masks. This is a dark, brooding type of supers game. There's no stats in that game to give you a modifier to your roll. When you use a move, you first answer questions, some from the move itself and one from your playbook. For the move Rough 'Em Up, the move's questions are "Is violence really the only solution?" and "Have you hurt them enough?", and if you took The Detached playbook, the question is "Do you feel like you belong?" You get +1 for each question that you answer Yes to, but the game's tone is such that often a no would be more honest and realistic.

To me, that is flavorful and gets the point across without restricting the player's choices or options. Whereas with what I've seen of BW, failing a Steel roll to kill someone wouldn't make me feel like I'm not brave or callous enough to kill in cold blood; it would make me feel like I failed a roll and lost a turn.

Because a game that makes me roll to see if I can perform an action is not player-driven, but mechanics-driven.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Part of the skill is not rushing blindly when there is no visible sign of danger. If you are always telegraphing, play becomes too easy. You want to make it more life like. So you could say you are measuring their prudence or caution. But it isn’t purely just about skill. It is also about play where bad things can happen to characters because there are dangerous environments. Character death is a real possibility and it can happen with the luck of the draw sometimes. A lot of what players are doing is hedging their bets

It depends on the situation but if you don’t telegraph, they have to go by whatever else remains or cautiously Q&A some more. if it is the cliff face example, and there is a coating making it slick that isn’t instantly visible. The players may need to do something like closely examine the cliff face or even touch it to get that info. And there may even be situations where they still can’t get information about the danger (i.e. perhaps there is a magical effect and they don’t have detect magic). Still it is on the player to understand even a safe looking cliff, could he dangerous. Part of what makes this style of play fun is the potential lethality. And that can arise from hidden dangers

Which leads to 'pixel bitching' everything. I mean, yeah we did play that game, and it was fun for a year or two... This is one of a host of issues which arise with the idea of trying to make everything realistic. It is rarely fun or particularly gameable.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which leads to 'pixel bitching' everything. I mean, yeah we did play that game, and it was fun for a year or two... This is one of a host of issues which arise with the idea of trying to make everything realistic. It is rarely fun or particularly gameable.

In my experience the pixel bitching is greatly exaggerated. In my experience 1) most groups are not that restrained and 2) pixel bitching is often just another way of saying Q&A (which many people like). 3) Pixel bitching has a downside, which is time. If you are pressed for time (which you might be sometimes) it is hard to pixel bitch everything, and even if you aren't, not everyone wants to progress at that rate and so they will often be more calculated about it.

But this is a style of play. That is the kind that the OS Primer is talking about. There are people who like it. And while my campaigns aren't strictly in this style, I do like encouraging prudence. Sometimes my players will go in swords blazing, because not everyone is restrained as I mentioned, but I have also had groups do things like hire 30 miners to go in and clear the space out. That is totally fine by me as well. That just shifts the focus a bit but it still leads to interesting places in my experience. And of course you can do the ten foot pole thing or fret over every step.

Now if you don't like it, that is fine. But I think there is a genuine lack of curiosity about why people actually enjoy these approaches. Not everyone here on my side of the fence speaks in a unified voice, nor on the other side, but most of the conversation seems rather than being truly curious, people are just trying to disprove that the style is even possible or worthwhile (in which case you are never going to understand it). And I get some people may even have done that style and got sick of it. That is fine. But for whatever reason there are those who still enjoy it, or enjoy a variation of it. Maybe there is something to it you missed?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think that's a fascinating question that should be left up to the player to answer, not left up to a die roll to say whether I can or not.

I just read a PbtA/Belonging Outside Belonging game called Masks of the Masks. This is a dark, brooding type of supers game. There's no stats in that game to give you a modifier to your roll. When you use a move, you first answer questions, some from the move itself and one from your playbook. For the move Rough 'Em Up, the move's questions are "Is violence really the only solution?" and "Have you hurt them enough?", and if you took The Detached playbook, the question is "Do you feel like you belong?" You get +1 for each question that you answer Yes to, but the game's tone is such that often a no would be more honest and realistic.

To me, that is flavorful and gets the point across without restricting the player's choices or options. Whereas with what I've seen of BW, failing a Steel roll to kill someone wouldn't make me feel like I'm not brave or callous enough to kill in cold blood; it would make me feel like I failed a roll and lost a turn.

Because a game that makes me roll to see if I can perform an action is not player-driven, but mechanics-driven.

I obviously have not read this game, but I'd assume that 'Rough Them Up' adjudicates an attempt to get something from someone by use of violent coercion. So presumably a 6- indicates the attempt failed to produce the desired results, or lead to undesirable consequences. It would seem to me that fiction along the lines of"you can't bring yourself to punch her in the face" would be within bounds. Again, I don't know the agenda of this game, perhaps I am wrong.

Anyway, Narrativist game design doesn't mandate something like BW Steel. DW, for example, doesn't really need that sort of mechanic, though as with your example, certain outcomes could be cast that way.

 

[AlViking]

Which leads to 'pixel bitching' everything. I mean, yeah we did play that game, and it was fun for a year or two... This is one of a host of issues which arise with the idea of trying to make everything realistic. It is rarely fun or particularly gameable.

Anything taken to an extreme can become unplayable. But there's a big difference between always broadcasting every threat, always revealing helpful information whether the characters would know it or not and old school killer dungeons where everyone is tapping the floor with 10 foot poles. Some people enjoy the old school skilled play but I think there's a spectrum between "step on the wrong square and die" and "always know the odds". Personally I let players know what their characters would realistically know which occasionally means they can fall into the metaphorical pit trap if they aren't careful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which leads to 'pixel bitching' everything. I mean, yeah we did play that game, and it was fun for a year or two... This is one of a host of issues which arise with the idea of trying to make everything realistic. It is rarely fun or particularly gameable.

I'm sorry you find that style unfun and not gamable. Just remember your stance is necessarily subjective, despite your language.