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

[pemerton]

In my view the two bolded bits are presenting the same concept in different words: that the GM imagines her way through the fiction's causality sequence that led to things being as they are at the moment to be narrated or described, such that if that causality sequence becomes important for some reason (e.g. the players in-character start investigating what led up to this moment) she's already got it covered.

They're not the same thing in different words.

Here's an illustration that shows why: I have an idea of Santa Claus, and that leads me to leave presents for my children by their bed on Christmas Eve.

That doesn't mean that Santa Claus exercised any causal power! That means that I, a real person, made a decision, driven by (among other things) an idea in my head.

 

[pemerton]

Still, though, in the specific catch-the-blood example from pemerton's game the player shouldn't have to roll to find a container if he's got one in his belt pouch, should he?

As I posted upthread,

Suppose that I, as GM, had narrated a vessel in the room. Then the player's action declaration probably would have been different - say, "I grab the jug to catch the blood". In that case the test would probably be on Agility rather than Perception.

Heck, he could have yanked off one of the decapitated NPC's shoes and had the blood drain into that.

Had he declared that action, it would have been resolved as an Agility test rather than a Perception test.

Also:

Right on. No, if he had one in his belt pouch, he wouldn't have had to roll for the character to find it. If getting the blood is important, there'd still need to be a roll of some sort. Somewhere up thread, I think @pemerton suggested an Agility test to catch the blood would be one possibility in the scene as framed, but it'd come down to how the GM set the scene and what actions the player declares to know precisely what rolls need to be made.

Right.

 

[pemerton]

Let me be clear: I do not accept your premise. Others here do not accept your premise.

Just to be clear - are you saying that imaginary things (like the Elven Lady Galadriel, or the Easter Bunny, or the Millenium Falcon) have real causal effects in the world?

That's not a view I've encountered before.

 

[pemerton]

The two seem fairly easy to reconcile with each other if you accept that a valid goal can be to meander about and see what happens.

The classic example, of course, is, "I wonder what will happen if I pull this lever."

The specific result you're looking for is, "I find out, hopefully in dramatic fashion."

Over 45 years ago, Lewis Pulsipher described that sort of lottery play as low-agency RPGing. I think he was correct - the players exercise very little control over how the shared fiction unfolds.

And the phrase "lottery" is apt in that respect: a lottery is, by design, a device for eliminating the capacity of participants to affect the outcome.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sherlock Holmes does not read ancient Sumerian writing

“Did I tell you about the case of the Giant Cat of Sumeria Watson? It involved the murder of an archaeologist and a golden cat idol. I had to teach myself ancient Sumerian in order to prove that the idol was a fake. Handy I know it for this case.”

Point is, a sufficiently creative player can justify absolutely anything unless they are constrained in some way.

 

[pemerton]

No, I'm suggesting that these kinds of terms pop up in discussions, books, and everything else for non-traditional games far more than the other kind, and if it's all game design jargon, why is that?

Why do you think that is?

For instance, is it because RPGs that are intended to be played roughly in the same mode as conventional post-1984 D&D don't need to include rules about that, because the designer/publisher can safely assume that anyone who picks up the game will "know" how RPGing is supposed to work?

Or is it for some other reason? Do you have some sinister one in mind?

 

[pemerton]

Well, apparently several folks here seem to think it's impossible. Perhaps you can ask them.

No one thinks it is impossible for the GM to make up ideas about the fiction, using plausibility as one heuristic.

People do think that plausibility, as a heuristic, does not on its own determine unique outcomes. And also people think that imaginary things don't have real causal effects.

 

[pemerton]

In a typical narrative-driven game, the encounter might have been introduced as a dramatic story beat or resolved through a scripted scene.

Can you clarify what RPGs you have in mind as "typical narrative-driven games".

Obviously none of the ones that I, @Campbell and @zakael19 are talking about, because they don't use dramatic story beats or scripted scenes. Maybe Fate? It would be interesting to know.

 

[pemerton]

We end up discussing mechanics so often because discrete mechanics are sort of easy red meat, but the discrete mechanisms are really only important within the context of the holistic design of a game. What brings the emotional depth to a Narrativist game is the intentions we bring, the work we put into establishing the initial context and structure and practice of how we approach the conversation.

<snip>

The mechanisms are important, but the practice and procedures matter just as much. Bringing task and intent into a conventionally ran game without the actual play procedures and scene framing know how won't get you very far because mechanics serve the process - not the other way around.

This is why, in talking about Burning Wheel, I've been focusing on the most important rules of the game: the statements of role and responsibilities for players (build PCs, which include priorities determined by the player; and declare actions for those PCs when they confront the problems that the GM presents) and for the GM (frame scenes that speak to the players' priorities for their PCs; and make sure the dice are rolled when a player's declared action in response to such a scene addresses something at stake given that PC's player-determined priorities); and the principles that govern action declaration and resolution (intent and task, let it ride, no test-mongering, etc).

To me it is obvious that these are different principles from those set out in (say) the D&D Basic rules, or any version of AD&D, or CoC, or Gumshoe, or even a game much closer in spirit to BW, like Prince Valiant.

That's one reason why I've been a bit surprised that the posts asking questions about BW haven't asked about what effect following these principles has on the play of a RPG, but rather seem to have focused on rather subordinate matters like how gear lists interact with action resolution.

 

[SableWyvern]

Over 45 years ago, Lewis Pulsipher described that sort of lottery play as low-agency RPGing. I think he was correct - the players exercise very little control over how the shared fiction unfolds.

And the phrase "lottery" is apt in that respect: a lottery is, by design, a device for eliminating the capacity of participants to affect the outcome.

I defer to @robertsconley comments about different fundamental axioms. I'd guess I'm less equipped than him to have that debate, and I'm equally uninterested. You're welcome to whichever definition of agency you prefer but, whichever you choose, there is clearly no room for a meaningful discussion with someone working from different axioms.

Edit to add:
Rob has pointed out that your axioms and perspective result in an internally consistent framework that enable you to run fun and legitimate games. He asks that you accept that his, differing perspectives and axioms are also valid if you would like to engage in meaningful discussion, and politely points out that continue arguments over the validity of each side's axioms will be fruitless.

You respond by continuing to argue against his axioms.

@Bedrockgames has also made it extremely explicit that he respects the opinions of the other side, even shares some of those opinions, believes that both sides are capable of running fun games, and simply asks to be given the benefit of the doubt that he can run and participate a fun game with what he and considers agency, even if others might wish to claim it isn't what they view as agency.

I have stated that I strongly support people having fun whichever way that works at their table, and I'm basically in agreement with everything Rob and Bedrock have to say. I make a comment showing how two seemingly opposing views can be reconciled in one particular instance, and you show up to quote some 45 year old commentary in order to argue reconciliation is not possible, and only your side can be correct.

It seems abundantly clear to me that your only purpose here is to win the argument by proving the other side wrong. There is no interest in understanding or meaningful dialogue, just a zero sum game where you must win and those who do things differently must lose. Have fun with that, I guess.