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

[Bedrockgames]

Personally, I can't see why a system can't simultaneously provide both bolded elements: rewarding use of system when the matter at hand is covered by said system (which ideally is most of the time), while still allowing and even encouraging one to go outside the rules to handle things the system doesn't cover.

This is very much going to be different person to person I think. My only observation is while I don't necessarily disagree as I have done a rulings based approach with heavier systems, the more the system pulls back, the easier I find it to do what I mention in the post. But I don't think there is one recipe for success here. That is one of the reasons why I like to play and make systems that have different degrees of robustness (sometimes I just want something super light that fades into the background and doesn't require any real look up during play, sometimes I want more interaction with a system)

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is very much going to be different person to person I think. My only observation is while I don't necessarily disagree as I have done a rulings based approach with heavier systems, the more the system pulls back, the easier I find it to do what I mention in the post. But I don't think there is one recipe for success here. That is one of the reasons why I like to play and make systems that have different degrees of robustness (sometimes I just want something super light that fades into the background and doesn't require any real look up during play, sometimes I want more interaction with a system)

By the by, its entirely possible to have a very light weight system that passes my error-reduction criteria; it just has to largely be very limited in its output. I saw one like that not too long ago, though its skipping my mind.

Where I consider the problem comes in is when the system then offloads a lot of the output definition on the GM, because at that point the GM is function to add any nuance to it on the fly, and that absolutely opens the door to a lot of inconsistency.

(Mind you, light systems tend to fail on other grounds for me in terms of engagement, but those aren't connected issues).

 

[JConstantine]

Thanks for the comparison. My copy of BitD is at my old apartment so I haven't been able to look at it for these kinds of similarities. Are the grudge tables what you were thinking of being like the entanglements?

I was thinking just the general travel encounter table, or the teahouse encounter table. Granted, the entanglements table is pretty much all negative things designed to complicated the crew's life, while your encounter tables are mixed, but it's the same principle.

 

[zakael19]

I was thinking just the general travel encounter table, or the teahouse encounter table. Granted, the entanglements table is pretty much all negative things designed to complicated the crew's life, while your encounter tables are mixed, but it's the same principle.

The core entanglements table kinda sucks. Most subsequent FITD games have a mix of interesting/good/bad, and ones that provide a bit more structure. More mixed stuff is better IMO!

(I’d almost prefer heat and entanglements to give extra scaffolding to the GM off factions and such, but I digress)

 

[Lanefan]

I will say that a lot of interaction with the players about rules decisions I reference assumes players who are at least moderately familiar with the rules, since I can't be bothered to handhold people who won't work to get at that stage.

The four players currently in my game cover an extreme range: one knows the rules as well if not better than I do (at least I hope so, given that he and I co-wrote most of them!), one knows them quite well, one knows the rules pertaining to character and general run of play and that's it, and one knows next to nothing.

The first two have DM experience, the latter two are forever-players.

And that's pretty good for me; more common has been that most were forever-players.

Also, I'd hesitate to "train them out of" advocating for themselves and-or their characters.

 

[JConstantine]

The core entanglements table kinda sucks. Most subsequent FITD games have a mix of interesting/good/bad, and ones that provide a bit more structure. More mixed stuff is better IMO!

(I’d almost prefer heat and entanglements to give extra scaffolding to the GM off factions and such, but I digress)

It's also very mechanics-first requiring the GM to finagle the fiction to fit. But the screeching if you dare point out the game isn't anywhere near as fiction-first as the book or its fans claim.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Obviously, the mechanical expressions differ, and there's divergence like BitD's score-downtime loop being far more procedural than your approach, but I see so much overlap. BitD encourages GMs to provide opportunities (i.e. hooks), but also follow the players' lead, no different from your approach; it allows initiating action with NPCs (i.e. what some seem to consider GM-driven); RBRB sects have write-ups pretty similar to BitD's factions, complete with assets and situation; BitD's entanglements table is literally an encounter table, like you use; and so on.

I'm not sure I would consider BitD to be a process of GM presenting hooks. IME the players are the ones saying things like "the Lampblacks must have a stash somewhere, lets go take it out!" or something like that. Certainly the GM is not uninvolved, but it is a different thing than classic play I'm familiar with where the GM hands out rumors or has quest givers hand them stuff to do. Doskvol is also kind of this target-rich environment, so there isn't much of a NEED for hooks. There isn't even the need for the sort of GM revealing unpleasant truths kind of thing that happens in Dungeon World.

Entanglements are more like hooks, if anything. They don't really serve the purpose of random encounters. They happen at the end of a score, as the next free play starts. Usually the entanglements started some new clock, or caused some resource depletion, or a change in situation (someone is incarcerated for example). This often motivates the next score.

Not to say there are not a lot of similarities. I would think that 'Forest Stories' would make a great milieu for a FitD game. Frankly it is very likely it has already been done, though I can't say I've looked.

 

[pemerton]

I think this "rules first" idea is at odds wiht what the DM has to accomplish. We’re prioritizing formal structure over pacing, momentum, and attention. And no matter how much we want to pretend otherwise, that's a tradeoff. One with very real consequences.

Try running a session where you stop everytime a rule comes up. Pause just briefly, look it up, and then resume. That's absurd. DM's should know the rules. But it gets at a greater point. You have to manage the attention of your players. In the above hypothetical, how many of your players are on their phones ten minutes in? How long before you lose the room entirely? Even if you only stop on 5% of rules, how many stops is that? 10? 20? All in just a four hour session. And thats assuming accurate recall by a human DM in 95% of cases - a tall order.

I think that you are talking about something different from what I am talking about. Or you have in mind some set of rules and principles that is different from what I have in mind.

Here are the important principles for GMing in Burning Wheel - they are from pp 9-11, 24-25, 30-32, 72 of the core rules (Hub and Spokes) which can be downloaded for free here:

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. . . .

A player shall test once against an obstacle and shall not roll again until conditions legitimately and drastically change. Neither GM nor player can call for a retest unless those conditions change. Successes from the initial roll count for all applicable situations in play.

A GM cannot call for multiple rolls of the same ability to accomplish a player’s stated intent. Nor can a player retest a failed roll simply because he failed. . . .

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.​

Conforming to these principles will not harm the pacing of play; in fact, in my experience, quite the opposite is true.

 

[robertsconley]

Even if-when doing so would reveal in-game information that would otherwise be secret?

If it’s in the middle of a campaign, no, I wouldn’t reveal in-game secrets as a rule. But I also wouldn’t be coy about it. I’d just say, “If I talk about this, it’ll be a spoiler for things I think you’d rather discover in play.” Then we’d have a conversation from there. But honestly, that’s extremely rare, maybe once a decade—that we even reach that point.

 

[TwoSix]

You need to work with better players or make better rulings. The vast majority of mine over the years have been interested in “what makes for the most interesting outcome here.”

Yea, pretty much every player at my table will advocate against themselves if they feel that’s the proper ruling. Heck, one time a player argued for a ruling that officially killed off his character.

It does help that most of my players have taken their turn as GM, so we all think about rules with our GM hat on even as players.