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

[pemerton]

you said "Content authority in Burning Wheel is distributed" and gave an example of the GM making the player roll to see if they found a vessel--in a room where an injured person was recovering, which indicates cups, bowls, and even, as you say, a chamber pot. There's nothing to suggest that the PC needs a specific vessel; they just need something that can hold liquid.

In any other game, the GM could call for a roll for the PC to find a vessel (IMO the most boring option)

<snip>

we're left with some possibilities:

The Burning Wheel GM can set the scene however they want--in which case if a player wants to go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with their traits (Beliefs, Instincts, whatever), the GM can certainly set it up, meaning that BW isn't as player-driven a game as you've been claiming, because we still have the GM setting things up.

The Burning Wheel GM must use the dice to tell them what's going on--in which case, if a player wants to go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with their traits, the dice can certainly allow for that--and BW isn't a player-driven game; it's an RNG-driven game.

<snip>

you skipped by the idea that in a sick room where it is very likely that there would be cups

<snip>

The point is that this game calls for a die roll that would be completely unnecessary in most other games.

You asked, in effect, who has content authority in Burning Wheel. I told you that it is distributed, and posted an example to illustrate a player exercising content authority (ie that there is a vessel in the room, suitable for catching the blood from a beheaded man) by way of a successful Perception test.

You frame this in terms of "the GM making the player roll" and "the GM could call for a roll" - ie you seem to assume that it is up to the GM to call for rolls, or not, as the GM seems appropriate. That is not the rule in Burning Wheel.

The rule for rolls in BW is quite simple (Hub and Spokes, p 72):

Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice.

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome.​

And this has to be read together with the most fundamental rules of the system (pp 9-11):

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . .

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.

Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. Even if the players decide to take on the roles of destitute wastrels, no matter how unsavory their exploits, they are the focus of the story. The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities. The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book.​

So, let's suppose that it's true that in any other game, the GM could delegate their content authority to a player, or to the dice, and call for a roll for the PC to find a vessel (I actually think this is an over-generalisation, but that doesn't matter). That doesn't seem all that relevant to Burning Wheel, where the GM doesn't choose to call for a roll: something is at stake (in relation to the PC's player-authored priorities) and so the dice have to be rolled.

This is why a roll was called for on the occasion I've described - because something bearing directly upon a player-determined priority for the shaman PC (namely, taking the blood of the dying mage back to his Dark Naga master) was at stake.

It's also not correct that I skipped by" the likelihood of there being some sort of vessel in the room:

The player of the PC's first action declaration was "I look around the room for something to catch the blood in, lilke a chamber pot." The player spent the appropriate resources within the action economy, succeeded on the check (which was set at a fairly low difficulty given the likelihood of there being some sort of vessel in a bedroom in the tower of a well-to-do mage) and was able to grab the chamber pot and start catching blood.

Whether or not low-difficulty rolls are pointless in other RPGs (again, I think this is more contentious than you do), they are not pointless in Burning Wheel.

Your insistence that BW is no different from other RPGs seems to me to be belied by your complaints about the various ways in which it is different! And to me, it seems that you are not really recognising the reason why rolls are called for in Burning Wheel.

And again, this is the same as in any other game. The PC has a goal and they set their priorities based on that. Burning Wheel is no different than D&D in that regards.

<snip>

Everything you've said about BW shows that it's just as GM-driven as any other game.

The players determine priorities for their PCs. The GM frames scenes based on those priorities. The action resolution rules - intent and task and say "yes" or roll the dice - operate in this context.

This is not the same as every other RPG. It centres player priorities in a way that is different from a lot of other RPGing. (Including some that is being described in this thread.)

There are relatively few people that I have seen speaking about playing D&D in a BW-esque fashion. One of them is me. Two others are @Manbearcat and @Campbell (although they are less likely than me to use BW as a model or exemplar for trying to explicate their play). The D&D in question is 4e, because it has some of the technical elements to support player-driven, scene-based RPGing.

I see zero evidence of this way of playing D&D being widespread. I don't see it in the examples of your own RPGing that you post!

Now if you want to play a game in which the GM is expected to frame whatever scenes that they find interesting; and in which players are not expected to establish and convey priorities by including these as elements of their PC builds (via Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Relationships, etc); then I don't think Burning Wheel is the game for you. Similarly to how, if I don't want to play game of dungeon-crawling, then I don't pick up Moldvay Basic.

I've read through it. They don't seem to be that different than, say, the Aspects of Fate.

Burning Wheel has almost nothing in common with Fate, except that both are RPGs.

Aspects in fate are there to be invoked, or compelled. Beliefs in Burning Wheel don't play either function - there are no "invocations" or "compels" in BW.

Aedros had a Belief and Instinct that should indicate he had no problem killing in cold blood, but apparently they don't. In Fate, if someone, somehow was trying to make me not be able to murder someone via a roll, I could invoke my Aspect to help me out.

Here you appear to recognise that BW and Fate are quite different. Which makes the previously-quoted statement all the more strange.

So Alicia is an NPC or a GMPC? If so, then this is something you should have said a week ago because that would have prevented about half the arguments I've had against the system.

If this is basically a GMless game, where everyone takes a turn running things, that's also something you should have said.

You mean like here:

My group had a session scheduled for today, but due to various vicissitudes only two of us could make it. The other attendee suggested we start a BW game with the two of us making PCs and "round robinning" the GMing.

And here, in reply to you:

as I've caveated a few times, this is a two-player/two-GM game (each of us frames the adversity for the others' PC), but it relies on the core procedures and principles of BW

However, since Alicia used Aedro's failure to further her interests (by mind-controlling him), then as a GM, Alicia's player wasn't impartial and, IMO, misused the "GM hat."

The Burning Wheel GM is not expected to be impartial. I've just quoted to you the most important rule that governs them (and have quoted it and paraphrased it several times upthread, including in reply to you): the BW GM is expected to present problems based on the priorities that the players have established for their PCs. The GM calling for a Steel test when Aedhros tries to commit cold-blooded murder is doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

The fact that Alicia follows through with a Persuasion spell is exactly what I would expect. There is no "misuse". Any more than there is "misuse" by me when, as GM, I call for the Tax test following the casting of Persuasion; which fails, leaving Alicia unconscious and hence (once again, from Aedhros's point of view) dependent on Aedhros.

Aedros did not choose to roll Steel to see if he could kill someone. Nobody has said that you have to roll Steel every time you try to kill someone. And I've searched! I googled "burning wheel do you have to roll steel each time you try to kill someone." I've even asked here. Nada.

Given that you don't believe me when I tell you the rules of a game that you appear to have never played, I'm not sure why you are now asking me about the rules. So that you can once again correct me?

Did Aedros' player choose to make the Steel test?

No, no he did not. It was Alicia's player, acting as a GM, who insisted on it.

In a PbtA game, a player chooses to act in a way that triggers a move.

<snip>

In both of these cases, the player had a choice of what they did. Any negatives that come out of a failed roll were because of the choice they made. And they don't suffer those negatives on a successful roll. In other words, the player consented to the risk.

I, Aedhros's player, chose to declare an action that is apt to prompt a call for a Steel test from the GM. If I didn't want to prompt the GM to call for a Steel test, I wouldn't have had Aedhros do something that is apt to do just that. This is - at the general level of structure of play - no different from an Apocalypse World player choosing to Act Under Fire. I don't understand why you are determined to insist otherwise.

the actual interesting part isn't finding the vessel but getting the blood back to the naga within a rapidly diminishing time frame.

<snip>

Then it also isn't a scene with any heft to it, which is something you have claimed it was.

Is it? And wasn't it?

I think you're very confidently conjecturing about the fiction, and the emotional dynamics, of games that you're not part of, being played via a methodology that you're not familiar with.

Perhaps you think that conversations about relatively mundane matters, such as a request that one's armour be repaired, of necessity cannot have heft. I don't know why you'd think that, though. And it's not something that I think.

So what actually happened? Did Aedros give an impassioned speech which you have somehow neglected to mention even once since you posted that example last Sunday? That could give the scene some weight--if the player actually roleplayed it out.

<snip>

If the player simply said "Aedros tells Alicia that mending the armor is important before they go on this excursion" and rolls a die to see if it's successful (or vice versa), then the scene has no real heft to it and thus isn't better or more intimate than any other game. And I'd have to point out that, once again, this game lets dice dictate how a player acts and thinks, which I think is a bad rule.

So tell me what actually made this scene have so much heft to it that makes BW more intimate than D&D?

I have done that. And you've accused me of lying; and asserted that it has no heft; and told me that there is no difference from any other RPGing.

I am not going to post the full rules for Duel of Wits. It used to be available as a free download, but that seems no longer to be the case. It broadly resembles other scene-oriented complex resolution systems (such as are found in HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, 4e D&D skill challenges, Prince Valiant, etc). Actions are declared and resolved by those who are part of the argument, and this progresses towards victory for one or the other party. There is also a mechanism for generating compromise (if the loser has nevertheless made some progress towards victory).

Because the core resolution framework of BW is (as I have posted upthread already, and as is set out the free download) is intent and task, the player has to say what their PC is doing - that is, identify the task and make clear the intent. In the case of Duel of Wits, this is called "speaking the part" (p 103 of Revised):

When scripting these maneuvers, players must speak their parts. Spitting out moves in a robotic fashion is not a viable use of these mechanics. The arguments must be made. Of course, no one expects us all to be eloquent, so just the main thrust or a simple retort usually suffices (but a little embellishment is nice).

Keep it simple and to the point. Say what you need to in order to roll the dice. A multipoint statement should be broken down into multiple actions across the exchange.​

The back and forth of the argument is also key to establishing the content of compromises.

If waterskins are adventuring gear, then what's Aedros' armor?

Aedhros doesn't wear armour; he wears his tattered Elven cloths, and the boots that he stole from the innkeeper.

Thurgon wears armour, because he is a knight riding the boundary between Ulek and the Pomarj on the orders of the Knight Commander of his order.

when I wrote the idea of the illegal kobold fighting ring (IKFR), I had an image of something like cockfights or dogfights--both cases of animal abuse. In this case, it would be sentient creatures who were being enslaved and forced into fighting each other for the amusement of others.

<snip>

In this hypothetical game of mine, I know what characters my players built and I know what their beliefs and instincts are (or aspects, or ideals, or whatever other term hypothetical system uses). Thus, I know that this IKFR would be of great interest to them--they just haven't learned about its existence yet.

OK? I don't understand how your imaginary set-up is not "self-centred", but the actual play examples I've posted are.

Likewise, in my actual Level Up game, I included an illegal fighting ring, although this one was illegal because it didn't follow laws re: betting, paying taxes, etc., not because it used slavery. Why did I include it? Because one PC is a gambler and another PC is described by the player as being a himbo who spent all his pre-game free time in the gym lifting weights and honing his muscles. So yeah, they loved it. Would either of them have come up with this idea on their own? No idea.

For some reason, it never seemed to occur to you that the IKFR could be of interest to the players, simply because it was made up by the GM instead of the players. Why is that?

Well, first, I already made the following two posts, both in reply to you, which directly contradicts your imputation of ignorance or malice or whatever you are intending by "why is that?":

I think @Old Fezziwig gave a pretty complete reply to this.

But just to reiterate and perhaps elaborate a bit on that reply, the key question is why are we paying attention to the PCs in this tavern? And why is the idea of illegal kobold fights a thing we're caring about?

returning to the secret Kobold fighting ring - does it speak to player-determined priorities? In which case, GM, knock yourself out. If not, then why are you talking about it?

<snip>

this is what would inform and determine the results of the GM attempting to make the Kobold fighting ring central to play.

Second, you are the one who is describing a game that requires the GM to frame scenes that speak to player-established priorities as "self-centred"; so why would you expect me to infer that you are now advocating for exactly such a principle to govern GM scene-framing?

 

[AlViking]

At the table during the game I deal with it by applying consequences. I generally find that fixes a lot of players that i've had other's say can't be fixed. There are some who refuse to get along with group and sometimes the best thing is they find another game. But I've also found some of those players straighten up after a rough game or two so I'm usually willing to give them some time to settle in. Groups don't mesh and merge in one game.

It just depends on the specific behavior, wanting to go into a completely different direction is only one. If someone goes off on their own, sometimes I can handle it in game but it just depends on how much time it's going to take away from everybody else at the table. Fortunately it's been quite rare that it's been an issue.

 

[AlViking]

I agree with 90% of what you said. But sometimes the difficulty we ignore is that complainer pointing out a valid thing that needs to be changed. It's far easier to walk away than face it, it's easier and when you walk away you'll probably never know you were wrong. But I do believe those types of situation are the minority. Most of the complainers don't add anything you want to the situation.

It can be hard to tell the difference between complaints and feedback at times. I think it's quite natural to have an automatic reaction to people telling you that you're doing something they don't like. You have to be sure to listen to what they're saying and occasionally ignore how they're saying it. Whether having an issue with a GM or player sit down (or email, text, whatever works for you) and have an open and honest chat. If you don't approach it aggressively I've found people can be quite open to feedback and may just not understand how they can improve as GM or how their behavior as a player is making the game less fun for others at the table.

There will still be times when there is no resolution because of differing style, conflicting priorities and preferences. We all have flaws, we all have things we wish we could be better at and would like to improve but there will also be people that just aren't going to be a good fit for you as a GM or for your group. It's quite rare but once in a blue moon it's just best to part ways whether I'm GM or player and it's not about either side being "bad".

On the other hand, as you alluded to above, the attitudes of some people on this forum are just foreign to me. The number of bad players or GMs I've had over the years is vanishingly small. So when I hear that bad GMs are everywhere or that GMs must be constrained to prevent harm it's just odd. I'm old and I've been playing for decades so yes I have a story of something that didn't work here and there. Most of those cases though were simply a bad fit and while slightly more common it's still quite rare. I've had great experiences playing D&D and a handful of other games that far, far outweigh the handful of negatives.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the point is more that IF the GM wants the players to do a specific thing or go a specific way, why not just be open about that? Why be coy about it?

The obvious reason seems to be because the GM wants them to think they can do whatever they like, but really wants them to do something specific.

The even more obvious answer is that the DM is hoping the party does something because he knows it will be a ton of fun for everyone, but is being impartial and letting them do their own thing.

You would have him railroad instead of be impartial. Why?

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps. But isn’t wanting them to go a specific route kind of leaning in that direction anyway?

No.

Like if that’s what a GM wants to do, then just do it.

No. We don't want to railroad.

 

[Maxperson]

If the GM thinks that a particular thing would be particularly interesting, I don't see the benefit in keeping that secret.

If that's how your playstyle does things, it's not our playstyle that's a railroad, it's yours.

We don't push the players in directions.

 

[Maxperson]

No. It's not railroading, when people turn up to bridge night, to start dealing cards.

Well, yeah. It's a card game, not an RPG.

It's not railroading, when people turn up to play classic D&D, to say - as per Gygax's example - "OK, you're at the dungeon entrance". (In a session that is not the first, the players may first want to do the sort of prep that Gygax describes in his Successful Adventures essay in his PHB.)

It's not railroading, when people turn up to play Prince Valiant, to tell them about the invitation to errantry that their knights have just encountered.

Yes it is. You're pushing the players in a direction that you want and that they did not choose.

 

[zakael19]

The way I see it, there's a pretty big difference between the two bolded things here.

The latter is fine. The former, not so much, unless it's a con game or similar.

Hm? Same thing - “you’re making your way down the forest trails the wizard said to look for when you see a ring of standing stones up ahead - just like the map shows.”

 

[Maxperson]

Here is the basic structure of a classic D&D dungeon:

The GM draws a dungeon map. At it's core, it is rooms joined by corridors, with doors being the principal mediators between these other two elements.

The GM, in the key, writes an account of each room. In its essence, a room is a latent scene. The scene is triggered/activated by the players having their PCs open the door.

If the players open doors blind, then they are not exercising situational authority. Rather, no one is - it is essentially random. (I guess if the dungeon is a single line, then the GM exercised that authority in building the dungeon. I'm assuming something more classic, with multiple paths etc.) If the players follow Gygax's advice in Successful Adventures, of collecting information and making plans, then they can be the ones to exercise situational authority.

We can generalise this account of the classic dungeon to a particular type of sandbox (we could call it the "classic" sandbox): the GM exercises predominant, even exclusive, authority over setting and backstory. (Maybe players contribute some backstory at PC gen, which they and the GM weave into the GM's notes about the setting.)

Many of the GM's setting elements - lairs, prisons, political factions, etc - have latent situations in them.

The players "activate" these situations by declaring the appropriate actions - eg that their PCs cross the hills to find the dragon cave or that their PCs talk to the mayor to try and secure her support in their attempt to overthrow the Baron.

So the players and the GM share situational authority, in the asymmetric fashion just described. As has been discussed extensively upthread, the less information the players have - about what situations will be activated and what is at stake in them - then the greater the GM's control, and vice versa.

In all these "classic" modes of play, the GM - if they are not going to be self-defeating - has to be generous and permissive in adjudicating the "activating" actions. I say "self-defeating" because if a GM puts blockers in the way of situation-activating actions, then the game will grind to a halt.

And in this sort of game, it seems to me that there is an onus on the GM to make sure that all of the latent situations are reasonably interesting - whatever exactly that means, for the particular game being played and collection of players. A GM who prepares uninteresting latent situations is laying the groundwork for a boring play experience.

Now, what is going on with the "plot hook" that the GM presents, but that the players are free to ignore? If this is the presentation by the GM of one of their latent situations - so, in effect, an immediate invitation to the players to engage in a situation-activating action declaration - then (i) the GM should not be worried if the players pick it up or ignore it, as there are other situations that are latent in the set-up; and (ii) the GM will presumably soon be presenting some other opportunity for the players to activate a situation by having their PCs do something-or-other.

The simplest illustration of this goes back to a dungeon: if the players have their PCs disregard one door, and instead examine another, this should be neither here-nor-there to the GM. (If it's bad play by the players, the GM might inwardly, or even - after the event - outwardly mock them, but that's not the same as having a hope for play.)

But suppose that the GM does not have a host of latent situations prepared, and the most interesting thing the GM has prepared is the situation for which they have presented a "hook", an invitation to the players to activate it. Then I don't see any reason to be coy. Let the players know where the game is.

And this isn't railroading per se. It's just being honest that the game being played is not a classic sandbox.

Railroading comes in when the GM decides and manipulates stakes, outcomes, etc so that the players aren't exercising control over the salient shared fiction.

That the game was designed as a railroad, doesn't cause it to cease being a railroad. Classic D&D was just a railroad that everyone signed on to ride. When everyone knows the game is going to be a railroad and agrees to ride, that's the one circumstance I can think of where a railroad isn't a bad thing.

 

[Maxperson]

If you don't think your other options are interesting, why present them?

Why do you assume that the one the DM hopes will happen is the only interesting option?