It's not arbitrary. Do I have the nerves of steel necessary to murder in cold blood is one of the thematic questions that Burning Wheel is intended to raise.
If you don't think that's an interesting question, then don't use the Steel subsystem.
D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
If you don't think that's an interesting question, then don't use the Steel subsystem.
Because that's what we do around here?
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Imagine what a wacky world it would be if we just played a game the way the rules said we should.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I really wish you wouldn't make this so personal. This is literally what I spoke of: you are making me out to be some kind of mentally stunted person who cannot ever trust anyone at all for any reason.
Believe it or not, IRL, I'm actually an excessively trusting person. That's one of the reasons why I care so much about asking this sort of thing. I DO get taken advantage of, BECAUSE I am trusting. My natural state of being is one where I take the things people do and say completely at face value, and I've been burned by that several times. Having been burned by it doesn't mean I've stopped--it's about as deeply ingrained in my psyche as anything else about me--but it does mean that I get little alarm bells when I hear certain turns of phrase, see certain behaviors, etc. And one of those behaviors that does that is responding to any and all concerns with "I can't/won't tell you why I'm doing this", especially when paired with "you just have to trust me".
Again: What do you do in the limbo between 100% perfect unassailable trust (which is what your style apparently demands) and 0% completely failed trust where everything is completely broken?
"We talk about it" doesn't tell me anything. What do you DO to fix a trust issue? If you're worried your players might be losing their trust in you, what do you do to fix it?
For the love of God, stop making it personal. You don't know me.
And now I can tell you didn't actually read what I wrote. Because the "other options" have nothing to do with other games. They are--as I explicitly said, over and over again in that very paragraph--other options for whether the DM is a perfect saint in whom you should place all your trust, and a perfect devil who couldn't be trusted if bound and gagged in a solitary confinement cell.
So...you admit it then? My only choices are meek submission, never actually trying to fix the problem, or blowing up my participation entirely?
Again you make it personal instead of reading what I wrote. I am talking about THE DM giving and taking WITH THEIR PLAYERS. Seriously, did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you just skim the first sentence of any given paragraph and then reply?
I don't know, things for DMs to do to build and/or rebuild trust? Perhaps strategies for players who are concerned about a thing and don't want to be disruptive, but do want to advocate for themselves, rather than just silently swallowing anything and everything no matter how small nor how large? Ways that trust can be demonstrated in both directions, rather than having it be 100% perfect unassailable trust in the DM and constantly watching players like a hawk for even the slightest bit of questionable behavior?
Irrelevant--because, again, not at all what I was talking about.
AnotherGuy
Hero
Max implied that providing the DC numbers for the climbing example may give away more information than he prefers.
Maybe it is the meta of it maybe not, but providing the AC number the opponent successfully attained with their attack roll allows one to determine whether the Shield spell, which provides a +5 to AC, will work. Both are giving away numbers.
It would be hypocritical to give a way one set of meta data but be uncomfortable with giving away another based on some notion of realism. Particularly with these specific examples since they are so similar.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
BuT hOw CoUlD wE MaKe OuR oWn DeCiSiOnS iF wE dO tHaT???
There are times that, even though I know it would screw up vast swathes of modern culture (certainly an enormous slice of video gaming), I almost wish I had two-use time machine (once out, once back) so I could prevent D&D from taking over the TTRPG market.
Because then this idea that rules are a horrible nasty bad thing which should be abjured whenever and wherever possible might actually goddamn die, rather than lingering like a mummy lord or the world's most tenacious fart. It's got to be the single most tedious thing in all TTRPG discussion--the constant need to defend the idea that rules are useful tools, and should thus be purposefully designed, and tested to see if they actually fulfill the function for which they were designed, so you can...y'know...make rules that actually work when used!
AnotherGuy
Hero
They're used for level progression which is based around character development & personal goals.
At this point they are 15th level, they have two ways to increase level.
Either a character must earns 16 XP (their current level +1) or achieve a party goal (defeating Tiamat + the Cult of the Dragon).
Should they increase in level by achieving a party goal, the XPs are carried forward for 17th level.
They were indeed, and certainly surprised (as players - he roleplayed it well, not giving them the slightest hint).
They got wind of a planned assassination attempt by the Cult of the Dragon on their way to the meeting and they were seriously depleted of resources, so they found a way to avoid the planned ambush by becoming invisible for their walk to the Waterdeep Castle from their inn, only to find that the other PC did not pitch up. So the remaining 3 members were grilled as to why their companion thought so little of the Council and all in attendance so as not even have the curtesy to excuse himself.
They were on the backfoot the entire time - suffering disadvantage on certain social checks as I worked the Council's frustration into the dialogue. All thanks to him. Good times!
FrozenNorth
Hero
As does Forbidden Lands, I recall.
AnotherGuy
Hero
I love this idea.Further thought: it's interesting that actually lots of newer narrativist games are going in this direction. you see it in Monsterhearts and Masks (the latter very popular), and Dungeon World 2 is also going in this direction of "you take conditions instead of HP when damaged" where all teh conditions are things like "embarrassed/enraged/despairing/etc."An interesting tie back to teh OP/title of this thread here, one of the co-designers of DW2 was bemoaning how it seems like lots of conservative D&D players had come over to Dungeon World and hated a bunch of the changes they were previewing as a result.
I recently allowed PCs in an epic combat to x prevent damage by either
Sacrificing a magical item (as if it had been sundered in the attack)
Take a level of exhaustion; or
Roll on the Lingering Injury table provided in the DMG
But this suffering a mental condition works just as well (if it can be worked into the fiction) to prevent x damage.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I feel like I have answered every question you ask
Similar Threads
- Locked
