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

[Faolyn]

Huh?

The player wants a vessel to catch the precious blood that is flowing away. That's something at stake.

Recently I actually saw a version of this scene in the TV show Merlin. One of the character has been poisoned or drugged, and has to be revived by being given the antidote. But the antidote gets spilled. And so one of the aiding characters - I can't remember now if it was Gwen or Merlin - looks around for something to sponge up the spilled fluid and then squeeze a few drops of it into the mouth of the poisoned/drugged character.

That moment of looking around is - in the show - a moment where the tension rises and we, the audience wonder whether something will be found, or whether some other solution will be necessary.

In my session of Burning Wheel, that moment of looking around - at the table, it arises because the player asks, earnestly, "Is there a vessel I can catch the blood in?" - is the moment of tension. The moment of stakes. The moment when the dice get rolled.

No, it's not at stake because they are in a location where blood-catching vessels will be readily available and visible.

The PC isn't looking for a specific vessel or type of vessel (e.g., the naga didn't say it must be presented to it in a silver wineglass or a blessed cup take from the local church). The PC isn't looking for a vessel that has been hidden away, deliberately or accidentally. They're looking for any type of vessel that can hold liquid in a sick room that should logically have cups, bowls, jars, dishes, pots, and other such items. Heck, he could have yanked off one of the decapitated NPC's shoes and had the blood drain into that. And if the PC knew ahead of time he'd be called upon to gather blood, then there should be no reason he wouldn't prepare himself for the task ahead of time unless the game puts artificial constraints on PC actions in order to drive up drama, in which case allow me to link to the TV Tropes page "Idiot Ball."

And that's something I consider to be a bad rule for what I assume is a serious or semi--serious game.

What's actually at stake is the PC's ability to get the blood to the naga, not find a cup.

From what I have read, Burning Wheel doesn't use clocks as per PbtA and many other games. I looked it up and saw a reddit thread wherein some people said "sure, you can import them" and other people said "no, they go against BW's purpose." I don't know what your stance on them is, but you have said that rounds as unit-of-time aren't a thing. And there was no apparent opposition that was keeping the PC from catching the blood--there was an assassin, but no mention of the assassin attacking the PC, at least none that I can remember.

Which means that, from everything you have said, there was no actual in-game or character-driven pressure on the PC to obtain a cup, nor was there a time crunch. Any pressure in the scene was from GM fiat.

So again, what's actually at stake, and what's actually interesting, is the PC's ability to get the blood to the naga.

In other words: to get around residents, guards, servants, visitors, and various other onlookers who may have just learned there was an assassin in the house and thus will be on high alert and/or freaking out, while carrying a cup full of blood, and possibly even covered in blood from attempts to get the blood into the cup.

 

[pemerton]

Discovering something about the world external to my character is completely different.

I wouldn't have thought your character dying is external to the character.

I also don't know what the basis is for saying these things are completely different. Even as action-oriented fiction as REH's Conan also involves the protagonist learning things about himself.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But how is that any better? It's just putting that world building into committee hands which sometimes ends up in better results, sometimes worse. It's still just a fictional world, not made any more real because more people helped design it. I don't care for it for other reasons when I've tried it but there are tradeoffs with every approach.

It's totally different! Trust me, I've played this kind of thing every which way. What you get in Narrativist play is far more directly engaging with the characters, and thus the players. I would not really call it a committee design. More like no 'design' at all. Note that the real world is also NOT designed! There's a lot of added authenticity here where you get a more realistic feel of a milieu that is not the product of a single mind with a single aesthetic. The world is filled with conflict and messy compromise.

 

[AlViking]

I wouldn't have thought your character dying is external to the character.

I also don't know what the basis is for saying these things are completely different. Even as action-oriented fiction as REH's Conan also involves the protagonist learning things about himself.

I edited my response but I'll repeat. I am the author of my character in D&D, I am not the author of the world. If my character takes damage it is typically because of something external to my character.

I find it difficult to believe you don't understand the distinction and I've had enough.

 

[AlViking]

It's totally different! Trust me, I've played this kind of thing every which way. What you get in Narrativist play is far more directly engaging with the characters, and thus the players. I would not really call it a committee design. More like no 'design' at all. Note that the real world is also NOT designed! There's a lot of added authenticity here where you get a more realistic feel of a milieu that is not the product of a single mind with a single aesthetic. The world is filled with conflict and messy compromise.

That may be true for you. I've tried it here and there and I just don't care for it. Why do you care if I don't find it engaging?

 

[Faolyn]

But isn't the player of BW doing the same thing? They've chosen to have certain traits called into question. Am I brave enough to face my fear? Am I hard enough to kill someone? That kind of thing.

If that's what play is meant to be about, and the player knows that the answer can be yes or no... that it will depend on the dice... then I don't think that it's really a removal of agency. This is something the player wants to see come up in play... even if it winds up not going the way he hopes it might.

I can absolutely understand how this may not be to everyone's liking, but I don't think it's problematic in any way regarding agency.

In that particular case, the character had the beliefs about getting revenge and instincts about always being right. That instinct alone means the character isn't going to hesitate upon killing someone if they have decided to do so, and wanting revenge means that they're OK with blood.

The removal of agency comes from the fact that, according to pemerton who has not answered my questions for clarification, any other player can "put on the GM hat" and decide to make the attacking player make a roll simply because that player doesn't want the other one to attack.

In the given example, PC 1 has NPC in a headlock. PC 2 sees this and decides to kill the NPC. Player 1 doesn't want this to happen and so calls for the Steel test instead of acting in character to stop the attack. PC 2 fails and hesitates.

 

[Faolyn]

I already answered this upthread, twice, in direct reply to you.

No, you hadn't. Not even one time.

 

[pemerton]

If neither the GM nor the players are directing an action in the game, then that action by default must be system-driven.

I'm not sure what action you're talking about, though.

I mean, here is a rough presentation of the sequence of events in play

I, the player, declare an action - "I - Aedhros - murder the innkeeper".

The GM says, "Hang on - do you have the Steel for that?" and calls for a Steel test. Given that something is definitely at stake for this PC, that is an appropriate call for a test.

I roll the dice - in the fiction, Aedhros is screwing up his fortitude - and fail - Aedhros hesitates.​

I don't see how this is any different in its structure from something like this in D&D:

I, the player, declare an action - "I charge the dragon".

The GM says, "Hang on, it gets a tail sweep reaction if someone closes with it - what's your AC? <rolls dice> It hits you with its tail sweep for <however many> hp of damage, and knocks you prone in you fail a DEX save vs <this DC>."

I roll the dice - in the fiction, my PC, having been struck by the dragon's tail, is trying to keep his balance - and fail. So my PC is knocked prone.​

Do you also describe this sort of routine stuff in D&D combat as "system driven"?

 

[Faolyn]

You say you’re only talking about character agency, but the systems you reference, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, and 4e D&D, rely on structured procedures that constrain the referee. These games give players control that extends beyond just acting as their characters. They also allow players to act for their characters, meaning they make decisions that affect the fiction at a structural level, such as framing scenes or establishing stakes. That is a different kind of agency than simply declaring actions from within the character’s point of view.

This distinction is important. In a Living World sandbox, players act as their characters. They make decisions based on what their characters see, know, and understand, and those decisions have consequences grounded in the logic of the world. The player is not stepping outside the fiction to shape the narrative or declare what the session is about. They are not authoring outcomes or negotiating framing. That kind of input is acting for the character, and it belongs at a different level of play.

You claim that stakes, tone, and theme follow from what players do with their characters. I agree, but in the Living World approach, those elements are not prepackaged or negotiated in advance. They emerge through the ongoing impact of events and consequences. Players are not told what the stakes are. They find out through play. Tone comes from how the world responds, not from a shared declaration. Theme arises after the fact. You only seem to recognize player impact when the system gives players structural control. I recognize impact when it emerges from consistent decision-making within the world.

As for Blackmoor, you say it was not railroady because players could predict the consequences of their actions. Yet Blackmoor lacked formal procedures for resolution. What it had was a referee, Dave Arneson, applying judgment based on world logic, for him it was history and what he loved about science fiction, horror and fantasy. That is the same thing the Living World model does. If Blackmoor had agency, then Living World campaigns do as well.

The real issue here is that your usage of character agency folds procedural guarantees into the definition. You say you are not talking about meta-level input, but you only seem to acknowledge agency when the system provides formal control mechanisms. That treats acting for the character as the default model, rather than recognizing the legitimacy of acting as the character in a consistent world.

It is OK to prefer that model, but it does not make other approaches flawed. It means they are working from a different definition of agency, one that deserves the same consideration.

Note that pemerton also said a game in which the players had one choice in where to go, and if they didn't go in that direction the game would literally be over (the only other option was to go home and do nothing), was not railroading.

So I'm not entirely sure that pemerton is using the term railroading in a way like any anyone else here is.

 

[Faolyn]

In typical D&D play, isn't it in the GM's court to narrate?

Depends heavily on the GM, player, and circumstances.

At my table, it's a bit more common for the player to come up with a reason than the GM. And when the GM does it, they usually do so by taking something the player said before and running with it.