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

[Faolyn]

OK, let's say I'm playing a character under that same Belief, "I will bring Joachim's blood to my master".

Am I, in BW, allowed to do some in-character prep around this belief, before the opportunity to gather the blood manifests?

If no, why the bleep not?

If yes, I'd make very sure that after acquiring this Belief my character was carrying at all times a belt pouch containing a stoppered empty vial, an absorbent cloth or sponge, and a knife or scalpel, such that if-when the opportunity ever arises to gather some of that blood I'm good and ready to do so.

As player, I would hope that prep would have, in this scenario, eliminated the need for me to roll anything: the blood's right there, all I have to do is pull out the gear I already have (and I don't even need the knife!), sponge some blood up, and squeeze the cloth so some blood drips into the vial.

In this particular case, there was a time crunch (I think(, which suggests minimal prep time. I'm assuming, since I don't want to go back however many hundred posts ago the original example was given, the scenario was that the naga said "hey, minion, a wounded guy was just brought in, go get me some of his blood, stat!" and the PC had to hurry with no time to grab anything.

Mind, I have no idea how the PC knew there was an assassin there. Or how the naga knew there was a wounded guy in the first place. I'll assume naga magic.

Of course, we don't know for sure--for all we know the naga could have given the PC this task days ago and said "the next time a wounded guy is brought in, get me some of his blood," in which case yeah, it makes total sense that you'd at least carry a jar around. But waterskins are apparently adventuring gear that normal people don't carry, so maybe jars are as well.

On the other hand, if the wounded guy had been brought in earlier, which I think was the case, and the naga was only now just telling the PC to get blood from him, then there wouldn't be as much of a time crunch--the guy wasn't on death's door--so there should have still been at least a couple of minutes in which the PC could have grabbed a cup.

Well, there was that assassin the PC magically knew about that he had to beat there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is true, man. Don't know what to tell you.

The point of rules isn't to limit agency, it's to codify who has the agency.

Rules can most definitely limit agency. I am not saying that is their point. Their point also isn't to establish who has agency agency. If a rule is getting in the way of me trying to do something I can imagine being done, but nope, rules either don't cover it well or make me jump through way more hoops than seems reasonable, then that is interfering with agency. And one solution is making sure the GM has the ability to make rulings that go beyond the rules. And one way to help organize this is to think in terms of setting. I am not saying it must be this way, or that a living world sandbox is the only or best one for agency. But if the GM is guided by what seems feasible, and takes a rulings over rules approach, that is what allows players to interact with the details of the setting the rules might not adequately anticipate. And settings having details, doesn't mean your agency is limited. Just because you are presented with a life-like scenario where a wall or fence exists, that isn't limiting agency. For agency to matter there also have to be things going on outside the characters. And some of those things will be obstructive (perhaps even to the point that something a rule would normally allow you to do, might not be able to happen: whether there is an agency issue there really would depend on the specifics)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, I said that it was more plausibility. I think consistency also came up earlier in the thread. And you advocated for a GM choosing to withhold information from the players if he felt it was appropriate... information that is up to him to share or not. You said you trusted your GM with these decisions, and that you'd prefer to be immersed in your character rather than be given knowledge that your character may not have.

I advocated for giving the players what information their characters would have in that situation. Now I didn't say doing it differently was wrong, or provided less agency. I just made the point that not giving the player meta knowledge about what is behind a rock obstructing their view isn't inhibiting agency. Again, you are making really strange arguments here, that you have to give maximal information for characters to have agency, and it seems to be an agenda driven argument (because you are consistently labeling high agency styles of play as having much more limited agency).

 

[robertsconley]

So things happen outside the PCs control that may affect them? Reminds me of real life, in which we are all limited by our own abilities and the world we live in.

Just like my sandbox game.

And it forms part of the appeal of this type of campaign. Players like the challenge it represents.

 

[zakael19]

Great post. That clears a lot of stuff up and really shows how you do things.



On sandrasan's site she has a load of texts under the roleplaying section. These are some of the more relevant.

A lot of this might be interesting to Narrativists as well, she's a good theorist.



How she generates content

Blorb Principles

idiomdrottning.org

Quick note on content generation and game spaces

The Chasm Width Problem

idiomdrottning.org

A character in a living world?

Character-tailored play

idiomdrottning.org

What content?

In a cloud of wallpaper, bones of salience

idiomdrottning.org

information transparency or not (very relevant to the current conversation)

Transparency of Method

idiomdrottning.org

Radically transparent DM-ing

idiomdrottning.org

No myth, realism and Blorb (kind of relevant to the conversation)

Realism and blorb

idiomdrottning.org

A brief practical example of a bit of prep

[DM] Prep toolbox? New Tepest.

idiomdrottning.org

I’ve mentioned it before, but V. baker is much taken with her Blorb principles (and likewise she notes in there that an AW game run per agenda and principles is likely hitting the Blorb concept of play).

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not about how the setting or the fiction is controlled. It's more about how the game is played. Is it played by informed players? Or is it played blindly in some way?

I've also not said that the living world sandbox is without agency... I've said that I don't think it's as focused on it as is often stated.

And our point is it is the prime focus. Agency is the main focus. It is the overriding concern when you run a sandbox. The problem is, you have redefined agency to make sandboxes seem more limited than they really are. I remember when these agency-sandbox threads first started cropping up here, and it was a direct response to the claim that sandboxes were providing choice (and it came on the heels of the whole kitty box argument that sandboxes are really just a choice between multiple railroads).

Living world also does not have to mean realistic by the way. That frequently happens because a lot of living world sandboxes come from a gaming culture that likes naturalism in RPGs. But you don't need that for it to be a living world. It could be a cartoon world and still be a living one.

 

[Faolyn]

To me, you seem to be imagining how a 5e D&D GM, or a 2nd ed AD&D GM, might resolve the scene. You do not seem to be applying the rules and principles of Burning Wheel.

Y'know the funny this is is that I've played relatively little D&D in my life. My first game was a con game held by TSR, but my first gaming groups focused on Star Wars d6, World of Darkness, and GURPS, and I'd only played the very occasional session of AD&D. Prior to 5e, I'd only played in one D&D campaign, for 3e (not even 3x) and we skipped 4e entirely. And now we have several PbtA games going on, and will hopefully be starting another one as a PbB. Plus, I've played in or run tons of other games as well of a variety of system types.

So no, I'm not defaulting to (A)D&D. I'm defaulting to the idea presented in nearly every game I've ever read, including bits you've posted about Burning Wheel: Don't have players roll for trivial things.

Having a player roll to see something that is out in the open--particularly since you said you gave it a especially low target number--is trivial. Especially since there are more interesting uncertainties to roll for.

 

[AlViking]

No, there's only one type of agency we're talking about. It's that of the player playing the game. Player agency.

There's only one type of agency that you personally care about because it includes having influence on the world outside of what your character says and does. I, and others, don't include that as something that matters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you google agency in an RPG, you end up with two primary types being discussed. Player and character agency. It seems there's enough buy in that those two show up all over the place.

Characters don't have any agency. They do not make decisions on their own. Their agency, like them, is fictional in nature.

The DM can't drive a sandbox or it isn't a sandbox. If the players don't drive things, nothing happens.

I think this goes against the idea of a living world that's been talked about. If the players do nothing, then things will happen. Situations change. So the pack of gnolls that's been raiding the countryside, if unopposed, now has resources to hire some giants to bolster their ranks, and they attack the town. Or similar.

If the characters are somehow removed from everything that's happening, then I don't think that's a very great example of a sandbox, and certainly not of the living world type that others are talking about.

This is why I describe it as more GM-focused than it often sited. Because the players may change what's going to happen, but whatever things are in progress are set by the GM. What matters is what the PCs do to change, interrupt, or halt those events.

A living world moves outside of the PCs. The world can live in a railroad, linear game, or sandbox. If the PCs just sit there in the sandbox like lumps, the world still lives. It's just very boring gameplay for everyone at the table, which is why the sandbox fails and the DM has to change the type of play.

This statement makes me think you're missing the point of the living world.

If a player can't do something because they failed a "steel" roll the player has zero agency. Full stop.

Why?

It leaves the impression that it’s all fiat, which it’s not. It’s a series of considered judgments, based on factors I weigh consistently.

There are many folks for whom those are not different things.

 

[robertsconley]

No, there's only one type of agency we're talking about. It's that of the player playing the game. Player agency.

It's about the player understanding and knowing the rules and processes of play to make decisions that affect play and allow them to achieve the goals of play.

This is how players of any game exercise agency.

And that’s your opinion, not @AlViking’s, and not mine. If you view that as the gold standard, great for you. But it’s not the case for others. Your views make sense within that framework, so I understand what you're saying. Just don’t expect agreement from those who don’t share your premise.

Likewise, I don’t expect you to agree with my views, but I hope by now you’ve read enough to understand why I hold them. And from the length of your exchange with @AlViking, I think it’s fair to say you understand his views as well.