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

[pemerton]

What is "intent and task"? I'm not familiar with that jargon.

I've discussed it extensively in this thread and other threads you have participated in.

Here it is, from one of multiple posts upthread; this one was a reply to you, among others:

The role of goal or intent, in Burning Wheel, is not in relation to how scenes are framed. Rather, it applies to resolution (as per pp 24-25, 30-31, 72):

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . . Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. What does your character do? A task should be easily linked to an ability: the Sword skill, the Research skill or the Health attribute. . . .

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . . .

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .

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.​

I believe it from Burning Wheel but somebody familiar with the system should explain it so we understand all the naunces.

It depends on the specifics of how actions are declared. To answer I will need the specific rules in question.

Here's a post from upthread, in reply to you, where I set out the rules in question, and offered some further explanation:

My favourite FRPG is Burning Wheel, and I have stated its core rules multiple times in this thread. Here they are again:

From pp 9-11, 24-25, 30-31, 72:

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. . . . 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. . . .

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . . Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. What does your character do? A task should be easily linked to an ability: the Sword skill, the Research skill or the Health attribute. . . .

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . . .

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .

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.​

This is the most player-driven approach to RPGing that I have used, because at every moment of play, the focus is on those player-established priorities for their PCs. Every aspect of play - framing, setting up resolution via intent-and-task, drawing out the consequences of resolution and feeding that into the next moment of framing - centres those priorities.

It also has a serious of ingenious elements in its PC build and action resolution systems. Part of the power of Burning Wheel is that it can handle a very wide range of situations. A discussion between two characters, about whether or not one will repair the armour of the other, can take on as much weight as, or even more weight than, a fight with deadly weapons. This is why I suggested it, to @Manbearcat, as well-suited for playing The Fighter and The Fisherman.

And in my experience, BW is not only player-driven, but is remarkably intense, and sometimes even emotionally exhausting.

 

[AlViking]

...

It's my stance that there's only one form of player agency.

The artificial division is about an accepted limit to player agency which people don't want to admit is a limit, even though they're pointing out that what they want and expect from play relies on that limit.

It's silly.
...

Then let's put it this way. A player makes 5 decisions during a session that has the potential to have significant impact on the state of play, 5 instances where they expressed agency. I don't think it matters if that was in-character agency or player agency, it was still 5 instances. In traditional D&D they were all expressed through their character, in your game they may have been expressed multiple ways but the number does not change. The number of times you have to make those decisions in my experience varies by session and, probably more importantly, on the number of players at the table.

I still disagree with you of course, you can't just declare absolute truth that applies to anyone but your opinion but even if I do I don't see a way to analyze it. It's dependent on more than just the rules of the game for RPGs I've played.

 

[AlViking]

For each move in Duel of Wits, the player must do the thing - "Speaking the Part." I mean, insofar as any game rule can force you to do things. And then you roll. Does that answer your question?

The point of the game is mechanize the back and forth of a verbal encounter, with each passage carrying weight both as character & in the mechanics. The roleplaying is directly fused with the outcome you desire, the same way your words typed out in this forum are fused with some sort of outcome in your head.

@pemerton correct me if I've misunderstood the rules.

Sure it can say you have to speak the part but what you say has zero impact on the roll, correct? It's just adding meaningless fluff as far as I can tell, the chance of success is unaffected by what you say or anything the character has done up to this point. That's why to me (and I'm assuming @Faolyn) why this doesn't really do what the label on the box says it does. There is no deep engagement or introspection here, just "Something, something, something" roll dice.

You can have emotional and meaningful situations in D&D as well and I do. But in my games what you actually say actually, not necessarily the delivery, makes a difference. Nothing is perfect of course but to me? It would be far better than knowing that what I have to say has no real impact.

 

[zakael19]

Sure it can say you have to speak the part but what you say has zero impact on the roll, correct? It's just adding meaningless fluff as far as I can tell, the chance of success is unaffected by what you say or anything the character has done up to this point. That's why to me (and I'm assuming @Faolyn) why this doesn't really do what the label on the box says it does. There is no deep engagement or introspection here, just "Something, something, something" roll dice.

You can have emotional and meaningful situations in D&D as well and I do. But in my games what you actually say actually, not necessarily the delivery, makes a difference. Nothing is perfect of course but to me? It would be far better than knowing that what I have to say has no real impact.

So no, you must do what your Duel of Wits action is to get the benefit. If you're driving home a point, you as your character drive home your point. If you're deflecting an argument, you deflect. Etc. IT's the polar opposite of classic "say words until the GM feels like you've gotten somewhere" because each thing your character says is tied directly to a mechanical outcome within a larger conflict (do I achieve my goal before my opponent overcomes me?). Besides, most D&D play in a ruleset that has skills is functionally exactly the same just with one roll, unopposed, and you see if all your pretty words mean anything (otherwise the GM is just fiating an outcome).

It may not be for you, clearly that level of mechanization doesnt work for everybody, but your characterization here is deeply unkind.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not sure we're talking about giving the player stuff without them doing anything, more the opposite? Like, using the meta channel to go "there's nothing to find here." Although this will probably depend on ruleset and stuff too, right? Like, if we're playing CoC or DG with the widely defined skills that have both auto-succeed and roll settings I think it's pretty flat - you either get info with a skill use or dont. But like, playing OSR dungeon crawling with puzzles or whatever, a Find Hidden skill use (Forget what it's actually called) is just "you used up a 10m dungeon turn and didn't find anything, now what?" and you can still opt to declare "I want to try and move that tapestry, surely there's something hiding there."

In a true OSR game moving the tapestry triggers combat as the tapestry tries to eat the hapless PC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then let's put it this way. A player makes 5 decisions during a session that has the potential to have significant impact on the state of play, 5 instances where they expressed agency. I don't think it matters if that was in-character agency or player agency, it was still 5 instances. In traditional D&D they were all expressed through their character, in your game they may have been expressed multiple ways but the number does not change. The number of times you have to make those decisions in my experience varies by session and, probably more importantly, on the number of players at the table.

I mean, I don't know if we can break it all down to such specific instances like that... but assuming we could, sure, this may be the case.

I still disagree with you of course, you can't just declare absolute truth that applies to anyone but your opinion but even if I do I don't see a way to analyze it. It's dependent on more than just the rules of the game for RPGs I've played.

I'm not declaring "absolute truth", I'm declaring what I believe is true and why... which is based on the actual definition of agency.

 

[AlViking]

Given that this is obviously false if one compares (say) snakes and ladders to (say) backgammon (both are dice-and-move-tokens-on-a-board games), I see no reason at all to think it is true of RPGs.

I never claimed there was any agency in Snakes and Ladders, that's a strawman. Having different expressions of agency does not necessarily mean more expressions of agency or more meaningful expressions of agency. I consider BW lacking in meaningful agency when you have to roll a die to make a decision (i.e. a steel roll) for the character. You apparently don't so we just have fundamentally different opinions.

And my experience of RPGing is consistent with this too. I've played in different sorts of RPGs, and have GMed different sorts of RPGs, and have found myself 100% able to compare the different degrees of control that players have over what happens in the shared fiction.

So? You have different criteria and methods of measurement based on what you find important and meaningful. I doubt we'd agree even if we were playing at the same table.

Relatedly, in this post:
Here you seem to be setting out a reason why you, as a player, do not want to exercise a certain sort of agency via a certain sort of technique: unless I've badly misunderstood, you prefer the GM to tell you what your PC knows about the geography of the setting, rather than to decide that for yourself.

I don't want to because it takes me out of my character. When I'm playing D&D, it's like reading a book where I really start to identify with the protagonist of the book. When the protagonist feels sad or anguished, I start to feel it too. Have me describe the world and I start to lose that. The analogy I used somewhere above was watching a movie. I'm not analyzing the cinematography, lighting, what techniques are being used. I'm letting myself experience and get carried away by the movie, transporting myself into that story for an hour and a half.

 

[AlViking]

No. They chose to stab. But hesitated.

It's not too different from how, in a D&D combat, a GM might narrate a failure to hit as waiting to long to strike.

I mean, upthread you were railing against the idea that a player could just choose to succeed, and now you're complaining that I as a player couldn't just choose to succeed!

They did not hesitate because the player running the character thought they would, they hesitated because the dice told them to. That, to me, reduces my agency as a player because the game told me what my character felt.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure it can say you have to speak the part but what you say has zero impact on the roll, correct? It's just adding meaningless fluff as far as I can tell, the chance of success is unaffected by what you say or anything the character has done up to this point. That's why to me (and I'm assuming @Faolyn) why this doesn't really do what the label on the box says it does. There is no deep engagement or introspection here, just "Something, something, something" roll dice.

But let's be very clear here. What you want is to have your stated actions and narrations be meaningful (or to paraphrase you here, "the chance of success is affected by what you say or anything the character has done up to this point").

The only way to make this happen is to have your actions and statements be evaluated by the GM. Much like in figure skating or gymnastics, your agency is to submit the best performance you can, and have it evaluated by a judge or judges and assume/hope the performance is evaluated using objective, fair heuristics.

Obviously, this play loop is the core of FKR-style play and still drives a large portion of the hobby. But more rigorously defined rules procedures and limits on GM authority arose precisely because contingents of the player base found the negotiation-evaluation play loop aesthetically unsatisfying.

 

[pemerton]

Sure it can say you have to speak the part but what you say has zero impact on the roll, correct?

No.

That's why to me (and I'm assuming @Faolyn) why this doesn't really do what the label on the box says it does. There is no deep engagement or introspection here, just "Something, something, something" roll dice.

Of course you and @Faolyn can believe what you like. But what you say in this post is incorrect.