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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Because the example you've been using would be solved rather handily in traditional play (and real life, for a more mundane version of the situation), by having the person in question bring a cup.

 

[AlViking]

I never said you lied.

I'm just saying that if @pemerton's posts don't seem clear to you, that's a "you" thing, not an "unclear post" thing.

@pemerton said I lied. As far as whether the posts are clear I can only point out that several other posters are also confused by their explanations. I am hardly alone. When multiple people agree that there is an issue perhaps it's an issue with the person doing the explanations, I've gotten far better understanding from other posters.

 

[TwoSix]

The problem here is this often starts to become insulting. I think we all get, you guys have a mode of analysis and an aggressive approach to interrogating game play. But most of us don’t even accept the model of analysis you guys use (and I will repeat, if it works for you, that is absolutely great). But the aggressive nature of of the challenge here very much bothers me and it feels antagonistic, often not like a good faith discussion. It is one thing to have a way of looking at games and wanting to share it. Sometimes the approach you guys take to challenging people’s conception of game play feels overzealous to me

Nobody is following you around and making these analyses. You're choosing to engage.

And it absolutely is a good faith discussion. Someone posted links to a blog advocating for "blorb" play, which is basically a lot of what you're advocating for; highly prepped worlds that react to player input and the world operates under defined heuristics so that the DM is as impartial as possible.

And I said "that's a wonderful series of posts that makes this approach much more understandable" because it both:
a) laid out core principles of play and
b) referenced, understood, and complimented other modes of play, and made logical discussion as to how those other approaches might or might not work with the principles being described.

 

[chaochou]

Player agency isn't a feeling. Player agency isn't subjective.

 

[TwoSix]

Because the example you've been using would be solved rather handily in traditional play (and real life, for a more mundane version of the situation), by having the person in question bring a cup.

And if your core priority is "simulating real life" rather than "rolling when stakes are raised", it would make sense to do so.

"Simulating real life" isn't the priority in this game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nobody is following you around and making these analyses. You're choosing to engage.

But that doesn't mean we can't have basic expectations of politeness. And engaging doesn't mean a person is just signing up to be interrogated. Look, I am fine having a conversation. I think my level of engagement with points shows I don't shy away from disagreement or debate. But I also think some of what happens in these threads almost veers into intellectual bullying

And it absolutely is a good faith discussion. Someone posted links to a blog advocating for "blorb" play, which is basically a lot of what you're advocating for; highly prepped worlds that react to player input and the world operates under defined heuristics so that the DM is as impartial as possible.

I missed this link. If someone wants to point it to me I will take a look

 

[AlViking]

Because the example you've been using would be solved rather handily in traditional play (and real life, for a more mundane version of the situation), by having the person in question bring a cup.

I don't get why some people don't understand how completely different their game approach is from traditional play that they can't just clearly acknowledge that their games don't work the same. It would help if someone could clearly state whether or not the following is a true statement: "Items and equipment don't exist in game BW in the way that they do in D&D." I think that was the answer a few pages back, but it could have been cleared up hundreds of pages ago. Then again the post I'm thinking of didn't really come right out and say that, that was my interpretation.

Noting of course that I can't analyze every single word on this thread and I may well have missed something. In case someone wants to accuse me of lying. Again.

 

[Imaro]

On a side note, I just noticed that the 2024 rules have completely changed Favored Enemy to be simply getting Hunter's Mark and you can cast it a couple of times per day. All reference to specific monster or humanoid types is gone.

Another improvement 2024 core implemented...Sometimes it really is the little things that make the game better as a whole.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And it absolutely is a good faith discussion.

This is not always evident to me at all.

 

[AlViking]

But that doesn't mean we can't have basic expectations of politeness. And engaging doesn't mean a person is just signing up to be interrogated. Look, I am fine having a conversation. I think my level of engagement with points shows I don't shy away from disagreement or debate. But I also think some of what happens in these threads almost veers into intellectual bullying




I missed this link. If someone wants to point it to me I will take a look

I believe they were referring to this post D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.