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

[Bedrockgames]

I’m not the one that has a “different usage”. I’m using agency the way it works for everything else.

It doesn't work one way for everything else. And it is contested in RPGs, though I think our use is much closer to standard than yours. However I can at least acknowledge it isn't a resolved issue. Definitional arguments are fraught.

As for RPGs being games… I don’t think that’s a point of debate. They are clearly games. There seems to be some debate about whether they should be viewed as such for the purposes of agency… but that is the special pleading that I reject.

Case in point. I don't deny the game element. Whether that means RPGs ought to be design liked boardgames, or agency thought of in terms of agency a player might have with a board game, a whole other story. For ages people on my side of the fence, defined away your play style by leaning into the RP side of roleplaying, which I also think is a bad rhetorical tactic.

 

[AlViking]

Burning Wheel is not a wish-fulfilment RPG. The player can find out that their PC is not who they thought they might be. For example, I found out that Aedhros is not as ruthless as I expected him to be. When the moment came, he hesitated.

I would not "find out" anything about my character other than that I failed or succeeded a die roll. But this argument is just on repeat.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There seems to be some debate about whether they should be viewed as such for the purposes of agency… but that is the special pleading that I reject.

It isn't special pleading because it is different from other games. And all games are different from one another. Agency in a computer game like kings quest is different from agency in Clue. And agency in D&D is a heck of a lot different than both those things. I am not saying rules don't matter or that you can't make a case for rules enhancing agency. But I think you are taking a very rigid view here, that treats things which are clearly different as though they were the same thing.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

OK, so take the idea of arguing so that PC 2 mends PC 1's armor. PC 2 wants to go to Dangerous Place; PC 1 doesn't want her to go until she mends his armor.

What happens if Player/PC 1 roleplays an argument that actually convinces Player/PC 2, but rolls really badly?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is my emotional state more important, to agency, than that I kill the Orc? Of course a game that foregrounds one, rather than the other, creates a different experience. But I don't see I any basis for saying that one is more significant for agency than the other: they both pertain directly to whether or not the PC achieves what the player has had them attempt.

I also don't see why Burning Wheel's focus on the emotional impact of trying to murder someone more significant for agency than D&D's focus on the emotional impact of a charging dragon or the emotional impact of seeing a mummy.

The D&D examples both involve supernatural fear effects, for one thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is fine, but having perfect control over mental state doesn't seem to enhance immersion, like at all.

It feels more like a focus on wish-fulfillment "I wish I was playing this game in a Star Trek holodeck" play rather than immersing myself in a realistic character.

Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but be upfront that your play priority is "immersive escapism".

Immersion can come from different places; it is a subjective feeling of being in the setting, and doesn't have to come from sharing your PCs emotional state.

 

[AlViking]

What frustrated me (particularly in the early years) was that it was possible for a player to downplay the emotional and character development side of their character because that portion of the game did not include mechanics and had no effect on any of the play priorities of the game. I enjoy the character development aspect of a hero and I found D&D catered only for adventure. As a GM I was trying to make interesting well-rounded NPCs but there was nothing in the system that encouraged the same from my fellow players. It was exasperating.

We see character development all the time onscreen with heroes and villains in our favourite movies, and I wanted to bring some of that to the table.

The alignment system was too brutal in its approach for both GM and players. Vampire the Masquerade came up with Humanity/Paths and had stats for Virtues which was mechanised. Still a lot fell on the shoulders of the Storyteller.
To me it seems PbtA games brought that theme to the fore, making it a priority, requiring that growth in playstyle which is encouraged by a system with a polished (improved) mechanic.

Players with that innate creativity and thoughtfulness for character are great, but having mechanics and techniques to bring out that style of play from your run-of-the-mill GMs and players (which most of us are) is so much better IMO.

Many of my characters have some sort of fairly significant flaw that may or may not be obvious, although I'm careful to not make something that will annoy or hinder the other players. But I want to be the one deciding or figuring out how they grow and how far they'll go. It may sound funny but I understand it when authors say that sometimes the characters in their book surprise them because that happens to me as well.

I don't see rules that enforce character growth or change making the game any more meaningful for if they don't care about character growth in the first place. You can lead a horse to water but if you force them to drink they're probably not going to be happy about it. More seriously as @Imaro said, different people want different things out of games. I don't care if they role play being frightened when they should be or if they don't give a **** about character growth. I don't see anyone not playing the character would care. All I care about is whether the people I play with are having fun. I don't define what is fun for them.

 

[pemerton]

You said another player can call for it.

No I didn't. I quoted the rule that says the GM calls for Steel test. (Of course other players, or the player themself, are free to suggest to the GM that a Steel test would be appropriate.)

Your example is of a player who put on their "GM hat." You have not outright stated whether that player is a player-player (i.e., someone who only controls their own PC) or the GM (who controls all NPCs).

Actually, I have. At least twice in replies to you:

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

Nor have you outright stated that this is a game where any player can control any PC or NPC.

Again, this claim is false. Here is a post made in reply to you:

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.​

You have said that a character's traits--beliefs and instincts--don't matter re: making a steel test to see if they hesitate before they commit murder, even if the person has traits that put them on the blood-thirsty side and make it so they don't second-guess themselves and therefore wouldn't hesitate. I consider that to be a bad rule.

No. Here is what I actually posted:

I will never admit I am wrong is a Belief. Aedhros was acting on it, in ruthlessly trying to murder the innkeeper. Always repay hurt with hurt is an Instinct, and in this context allows me to assert, with no need for a test, that Aedhros is in the room ready to kill the innkeeper.

They don't affect the Steel test. I could have gone for Mouldbreaker persona, by choosing to have Aedhros fall to his knees and beg for mercy (lamenting his inability to prevent his spouse's death) - but I chose not to. I didn't think that Aedhros was yet at that point.

This post was in reply to you posting that "Aedros (I am not going back to look up spelling) has "hurt for a hurt" and "never admit I'm wrong" as traits. With those traits, saying he might hesitate--that is, second-guess himself and think that he might have been wrong in choosing to attack--was out of character".

I didn't post anything about the effect of traits on Steel tests. As I just posted in reply to @CellarHeroes, there are traits that can reduce hesitation, and also traits that can change the list of hesitation options. Aedhros has no trait that reduces hesitation when attempting cold-blooded murder.

You said that PC 1 didn't want PC 2 to commit murder

Correct. In fact, Alicia used her magic to persuade Aedhros to spare the innkeeper.

so PC 1's Player called for PC 2's Player to make a roll that could prevent PC 2 from committing murder (thus using out-of-game/metagame methods to enforce in-game wishes).

It was in the capacity of GM, in a round-robin GMed game, that Alicia's player called for the Steel test.

You have claimed that the GM (or player that puts on a GM hat) has no choice as to when to request this roll, but at the same time said that the roll can only be made under certain circumstances, without clarifying how the GM can decide if those circumstances are met.

I've spelled it out in laborious detail: if the general rules for making a test are satisfied (which I have posted dozens of times now, including multiple times in reply to you); and if the circumstances are such as to enliven the possibility of a Steel test (which I have set out in general terms in reply to you and others).

It baffles me that you think this remains unclear.

Also, the circumstances that are required were not present in the given example

Yes they were. As I've already told you, multiple times, committing cold-blooded murder is a trigger for a Steel test (see pp 124-5 of the Revised rulebook; I am not going into the other room to also quote the page numbers from Gold). Initial Steel is also higher for a character who has committed murder in the past; and there are multiple traits that reduce Hesitation when committing murder.

I know that, for whatever reason, you think I'm lying about the rules of the game, and that you know them better than me. But I wish you would stop saying that I've not answered this or that question, or provided this or that information, when - as per the re-posts in this post - it is obvious that I have.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Burning Wheel is not a wish-fulfilment RPG. The player can find out that their PC is not who they thought they might be. For example, I found out that Aedhros is not as ruthless as I expected him to be. When the moment came, he hesitated.

Because the die roll, imposed on him through the actions of another player, told them to hesitate. That is at least system-driven, if not other player-driven.

 

[pemerton]

Because the die roll, imposed on him through the actions of another player, told them to hesitate.

The Steel test was called for by the GM:

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.

<snip>

Aedhros entered the room at this point, with Heart-seeker drawn and ready for it to live up to its name. But Alicia thought that killing the innkeeper was a bit much. So first, she used her advantageous position to render the innkeeper unconscious (no check required, given the outcome of the Bloody Versus). Then her player, wearing the GM hat, insisted that I make a Steel check to commit cold-blooded murder. This failed, and so I hesitated for 4 actions.

I understand that this sort of round-robinning of GMing may not be familiar to you. But I don't see how it is that hard to follow.

That is at least system-driven, if not other player-driven.

I don't know what you mean by "system-driven", other than that it was in accordance with the rules of the game.