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

In the same way that I don't normally explain the potential of cinema by reference to poor instances of the art form, so I wouldn't try to elucidate what is possible in RPGing by reference to clumsy unsuccessful attempts.

I can tell you that it is possible to have RPGing which elides low-stakes moments in the fiction, either completely or by "saying 'yes"", without things being disjointed. And I've posted lots of actual play examples that illustrate this. You're welcome to read and/or critique them.

To appreciate how it is done, in a technical sense, just think about how even the most hardcore "every moment of PC life happens on screen" group of RPGers don't set out to replicate Andy Warhol's sleep - the passage of time when the PCs are resting will be elided in play. That method of elision can be extended more broadly.
To a point, after which enough detail gets lost or skipped that continuity starts to suffer.
Your conjecture here is false. There are multiple assumptions that are leading you to a false conjecture. One is that you are assuming the GM is the one who is selecting the elements/components of the framed scenes.
Given it's supposedly the GM's job to frame scenes, my assumption would appear valid.
Another is that you are not taking seriously the fact that scenes are framed in time and over time according to the relevant principles: you are imagining that all the scenes can be envisaged as laid out in advance of any actual play happening.
Nope. The scenes could be framed in the moment as they arise, but the end result is the same: the GM drives the bus.
Here's a concrete example from play: Played Burning Wheel today Aedhros's Beliefs include I will avenge the death of my spouse! and Thurandril [the Elven Ambassador to Hardby, and Aedhros's father-in-law] will admit that I am right! You can see, in that play report, scenes being framed and actions resolved that pertain to this:
This is a long, long way from the GM determining the path of things. You can see the interplay between player and GM authority (including the Circles test), and the way particular situations are taken up and things put at stake (eg the dying Lady Mina, which began as a Thoth-oriented scene) by me playing Aedhros.
The problem here is that, by your own prior admission, you're not just a player in this game, it's a one-on-one game in which you're also the co-GM. And being co-GM gives you scene-framing rights and abilities most players will never have, which means you've got far more direction (dice-dependent, of course) over how your character's story tries to play out.

That factor alone sets any examples you post from this campaign a long way apart - as in light-years apart - from the way the vast majority of us play. I'd go so far as to posit they're not even reflective of typical BW play, as from what I can tell BW isn't specifically designed for two people each filling the roles of player and GM simultaneously.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's really not the case. Take the typical locked door. It's pretty rare that failing to pick the lock would, in and of itself, cause something interesting to happen. The interesting things that happen are if the lockpicks break, if the picker takes so long that someone finds them (or their quarry on the other side is alerted), or if failure causes a Grimtoothian door trap to be sprung. But if the only thing that happens is the party fails to get to the other side, then not only is that not interesting, but it cuts the players off from part of the adventure.
Can the door not be opened any other way than by picking the lock? Forcefully-applied boots? Repeated use of an axe or hammer? Removal of hinges? Knock spell? Shrink spell? Warp Wood spell (if the door has any wood to it)? Someone goes gaseous or shapeshifts into something really small or even Dimension Doors then goes through and opens it from the other side?

Simply concluding the players are cut off from part of the adventure because they can't pick a lock seems like very stilted inside-the-box thinking. And even the lowest-level parties have access to the non-magical possibilities noted above, plus others.
You may shrug and say "hey, they can go back later," but that (a) doesn't make it more interesting now and (b) isn't the way lots of groups play.
If lots of other groups can't or won't think outside the box now and then, that ain't my problem. :)
If the fail state is instead, the party gets through the door but something bad happens (broken pick, delay, foes alerted, trap, something else), then there's no disjointed wackiness to be had unless you actively put it there for some reason.
Except that's not a fail state!!! Getting through the door is a - no, it's the - defined success state for this roll, and thus by RAW needs a 'success' result in order to occur in any way. A fail result of any kind means they do not get through.
 

As for pacing itself. I just find it odd that anyone would really want to RP a stakeless shopping expedition. I mean, OK, for 5 minutes, maybe? I am not denigrating anyone's fun, just saying we're here to do fantasy RPG, lets get to it! I literally start to nod off when people start into this kind of wool gathering sort of play. It just isn't compelling.
It also depends on how important the characters' gear and equipment are to play. In a game where gear and equipment are carefully tracked and-or can be vital to success, forgetting to pick up something while in town can have big consequences later and thus at least doing the basic "adding items to one's sheet and knocking off the requisite number of g.p." step is rather important.

A recent example from my game: the party found themselves in a null-magic zone in some caverns. All their magical lights went out, and most of them couldn't see in the dark (lots of Elves, and in my game their night-sight only works outdoors). Much checking of character sheets later, it turned out not a single one of 'em had a mundane lantern or torch to provide light! Someone did have three basic candles, which were used to get them through to where their lights came back on.

Next time in town they all loaded up on mundane light sources! :)
 

I'm not going to say you're generically wrong here, but I'll just note that back in the day when we shifted over from OD&D to RuneQuest almost everyone in the (rather large group) got an immediately stronger feeling of verisimilitude. I'd speculate that's because RQ felt both more grounded and less stylized than OD&D, and any extra rules lookups couldn't come close to disrupting that difference. And it was kind of a radical change that took us a while to get used to all the details in.
Entirely fair. I would not say that this effect happens all the time. Just that, in at least some cases, the distracting meta-thinking may arise because of differences in system.

Likely, enthusiasm and prior buy-in help immensely here. After all, everyone is new to RPGing the first time they participate. It might be the case, for example, that things within the same over-arching system could cause greater issues--because emotively it feels like it SHOULD be the same, you're fighting mindflayers and rust monsters with fireballs and magic missiles etc., but the systems are different and that leads to cognitive dissonance?

So, because I agree I wasn't clear before: This doesn't happen all the time. Nor does it always cause issues when it does happen. I do think, however, that system unfamiliarity (particularly if it's juxtaposed with thematic familiarity, and thus the expectation of familiarity in general) can contribute to feeling pulled away from the fiction and into distracting pure-system issues that have little to do with the felt, visuals-in-the-mind experience of TTRPG play.

Also, because it's probably a good idea to foster more positivity than I have previously: I appreciate your charitable reading of what I said. Thank you.
 

Can the door not be opened any other way than by picking the lock? Forcefully-applied boots? Repeated use of an axe or hammer? Removal of hinges? Knock spell? Shrink spell? Warp Wood spell (if the door has any wood to it)? Someone goes gaseous or shapeshifts into something really small or even Dimension Doors then goes through and opens it from the other side?

Simply concluding the players are cut off from part of the adventure because they can't pick a lock seems like very stilted inside-the-box thinking. And even the lowest-level parties have access to the non-magical possibilities noted above, plus others.
It depends on the context, but for some of these:
  • Some doors can be forcibly opened that way, some can't. Many dungeon doors are made of stone or metal, for example--that's been my experience with doors in 5e, for example. Wooden ones are rarely an impediment, and stone ones aren't realistically gonna yield to mere hammer blows.
  • "Removal of hinges" is one of those ideas that only makes sense if the GM isn't really thinking through the design of the dungeon. If the hinges are accessible from the side of the door that's meant to keep people out, the lock is worthless and the architects were idiots, which might happen very rarely but can't be relied upon.
  • Most of the spells you've mentioned are not a reliable tool for several reasons. In older-style D&D play, such as your game, IIRC spells are only received randomly and there's no guarantee you'll find them out in the world either. I'm not familiar with warp wood (sounds like a Priest spell?), but that depends on the door being wood, so same issue as the first bullet point.
  • Depending on the rules involved, it's not always possible to shapeshift into something small enough to slip under the door. Certainly in Dungeon World that'd be a thing, for example, but in 3.5e, Druids cannot shapeshift into any size smaller than Tiny, which is two size categories too big to fit under most doors (you need to go past Tiny and Diminuitive down to "Fine", which is <6 in tall/long).
  • Dimension door is almost surely a success if the door can then be removed afterwards, but is a pretty powerful spell to blow on just potentially getting past a door (4th level in every edition I can find--surprisingly, even in 3e which often had spells at wildly different levels depending on class). Players might rightfully question the worth of such a thing.

If lots of other groups can't or won't think outside the box now and then, that ain't my problem. :)
Perhaps, perhaps not. Surely, though, it would be good for GMs-in-general to know and have the use of tools that can address these issues? Surely it would be beneficial to have ways to teach GMs without forcing them to make stupid mistake after stupid mistake after stupid mistake in order to finally stumble into wiser ways to approach a problem?

Like...that's literally what makes humans special. We can build up one lifetime's worth of knowledge...and then condense it into a few books, perhaps a small bookshelf worth of reading, which another human can then digest and understand in mere days, perhaps weeks. Developing tools and processes and procedures and guidelines and rules of thumb and (etc., etc., etc.) so that those who come after us don't have to blindly stumble in the dark until they find the way a thousand other people silently found already but failed to communicate to them.

That's one of many reasons why I talk about tools of various kinds (procedures, processes, guidelines, rules of thumb, best practices, SOPs, etc.), and why I almost always ask about them when I want to know more about a style I don't yet know. Those things are human power in action. And it's why I see TTRPG design (not play, design) as a technology; because our techniques can in fact get better. We can recognize where there are flawed behaviors, like the whole "force the rogue to roll Sneak and Move Silently every five seconds, and they are immediately seen and captured/attacked when they fail" problem, which is addressed by Let It Ride, a technique that even many very, very experienced and otherwise high-quality GMs simply do not learn on their own.

We can--and should--identify places where problems commonly occur, or where there is a serious risk of very severe problems, and look for ways to prepare ourselves and those who will come after us against such pitfalls. That's not in any way a deprecation of the importance of human judgment. It's not in any way replacing humans with robots. It is simply recognizing that it is often easy to run into problems you don't realize are a problem, and even when you DO know there's a problem, knowing you have a problem and knowing how to solve it are VERY different things. Giving others--both contemporary and in posterity--tools to address the problems we know we have means they can be focused on dealing with whatever new problems will inevitably arise in the spaces between the up-front problems we dealt with.

Except that's not a fail state!!! Getting through the door is a - no, it's the - defined success state for this roll, and thus by RAW needs a 'success' result in order to occur in any way. A fail result of any kind means they do not get through.
It depends on whether the party HAS to get through the door or not, doesn't it? One of the reasons behind "fail forward" is specifically to teach GMs that there is a different way to deal with a "single point of failure" problem. That is, sometimes you're going to only realize something was a single point of failure too late to directly address it--or you're improvising and didn't think that far ahead, or you truly want this to be a single point of failure because that creates tension, or whatever else. But a single point of failure where the only result of failure is "the game grinds to a halt because nothing happens nor can happen" is pretty blatantly a bad thing.

Fail forward, as a rule of thumb, means that even if the party gets struck by such a thing, the pace of the experience and the enjoyment of play don't get drained away as the party sits there, waiting for one of their schemes to finally, finally, FINALLY open the stupid friggin' door.
 

Thing is, oftentimes some or even all of those 'x' events are what lead up to the following 'H' event; which means eliding or handwaving the 'x' events risks having those 'H' events happen in isolation and without coherent in-fiction explanation - kinda like a movie where the editor was ordered to shoehorn a four-hour story into a 90-minute runtime leading to a disjointed, jumpy show on the screen.

I would say it’s more like how most movies handle it. You watch the character get into a car and pull away… then they cut to a scene of him arriving at his destination.

No one’s baffled by what happened in between.

To a point, after which enough detail gets lost or skipped that continuity starts to suffer.

It really doesn’t. You insist this always whenever this comes up… but it literally doesn’t happen. Many of us play this way and we are telling you, your concern is unfounded.

But you continue to make this claim despite what we say and despite any actual evidence that you’ve seen your concerns manifested.

It also depends on how important the characters' gear and equipment are to play. In a game where gear and equipment are carefully tracked and-or can be vital to success, forgetting to pick up something while in town can have big consequences later and thus at least doing the basic "adding items to one's sheet and knocking off the requisite number of g.p." step is rather important.

Sure, but that can all be done quickly. It’s bookkeeping… handle it as quickly as possible and then move on. There’s not really any need to act out the transaction. Maybe a little if the vendor is an important NPC or something… obviously, there may be exceptions. But generally speaking, you can just do what’s necessary and then move on.

And this mindset can be applied more broadly. Play does not break down. All that happens is you skip out on the dull bits.
 

What @hawkeyefan said. "Exciting" is a useful shorthand for "interesting, exciting, emotionally resonant, etc".'

@zakael19 got at something similar when referring to amazement (I think that was the word - sorry, I didn't hit quote and haven't gone back to check) at what might be said or revealed in "downtime" PC interactions.

I aspire to play being exciting, engaging, interesting, surprising, tragic, hilarious or otherwise moving, as much as possible. Of course there are breathers after dramatic moments, chatter, breaks to pour drinks or whatever. But I don't need what I have called upthread "low stakes" action declaration and what @Campbell recently called "conflict neutral" action declaration, where the PCs are just "poking" at the setting so that the players can elicit further information from the GM about what the ingame situation is. Nor do I need extended periods of no-stakes colourful in-character narration (eg someone upthread talked about half an hour of play choosing outfits for a ball - maybe @AlViking?).
As usual, well-said.

Let's suppose that your game goes x,x,x,x,H,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,H,. . . . - where the "x"s represent non-highlight events, and the "H"'s represent highlight events. And let's suppose that this is verisimilitudinous. Now suppose someone else's game elides all those "x"s - they are understood to happen offscreen, or are narrated through quickly via saying "yes" to no-stakes action declarations, and only the "H"s actually get time and attention at the table. That second game is all highlights, but its setting and fiction are just as verisimilitudinous, because idential to, the setting and fiction of the first game.
And it doesn't even need to be H,H,H,H...; it could be HxHHxHHHxHxHxHHHHxH... or any of a million variations where a few non-highlight events are present because (as you said above) "breather" moments are quite valuable in moderation.
 

I explicitly tell people when they're thinking of joining the game that I expect them to accept that they're on a team and to work with the other people at the table to find someone who will fit in. There will be opportunities for players to pursue their character's agendas to a certain degree during downtime and we'll exchange messages on it. But entire solo sessions? I just don't see that ever happening.
There are a couple of mitigating factors I believe.
The overarching campaign has been set up with twists and pulls in various directions (That's on me)
This storyline (not campaign) is reaching its conclusion from about a decade's worth of roleplaying. It is our ACT 2. The tension is high as the time is running out.
The solo path, cements well with a character bond which suits their choice, but which also interconnects strongly with the main storyline. I've purposefully made it so every player choice matters.
The characters are 15th level, their personal agendas are increasingly taking centre stage.
He is not a new player, we've been gaming for 27+ years together. The others in the main group are (15 years, 4 years, and 2+ years).
And lastly, I suppose I have encouraged players driving the direction of the story and this is the ultimate expression of this.

From my perspective, it is a little more work, but it is work that is creatively challenging and fulfilling.
It is very important to me (and for the table) that I do not throw a decades worth of investment and storyline down the toilet the same way David Benioff and D.B. Weiss did or the way they rushed the conclusion to the TV series Lost.
 
Last edited:

Sure, but that can all be done quickly. It’s bookkeeping… handle it as quickly as possible and then move on. There’s not really any need to act out the transaction. Maybe a little if the vendor is an important NPC or something… obviously, there may be exceptions. But generally speaking, you can just do what’s necessary and then move on.

And this mindset can be applied more broadly. Play does not break down. All that happens is you skip out on the dull bits.
The way I've generally gone about it is, if the players really want to make an event out of visiting an ordinary shopkeeper for ordinary purchases, they can, but doing so will almost never add much to the experience beyond....acted-out demonstrations that shopkeepers exist? Which at least for me I don't need to act that out to know that shopkeepers exist in a setting. It's more than enough to hear of the bustling market, to give a line or two of GM description that talks about how it takes their cab a few minutes to work through a plaza thronging with customers and merchants loudly hawking their wares etc.

But! If they're looking for something that is, or should be, more distinctive...that's when things get more involved, because they aren't looking for functionally fungible goods, they're looking for something that is "special" to at least some degree. Hence when the Bard decided to peruse the markets looking for an instrument that would have some kind of magical benefit, or when the Druid went looking for whatever curiosities might catch his eye, or when our Battlemaster wanted to find an armorsmith to reforge the orichalcum covering-plates the party had collected, it was more than just a quick bit of bookkeeping. There there were merchants, with lives, and histories, sometimes families; there, there were backstories and requests and drive beyond just "exchange fungible currency at the nearest general-goods store" stuff.

That way, we don't have to blow a quarter of a three-hour session doing literally nothing more than...exchanging ordinary goods for their fair market price. That fairly tedious task can be finished in a minute or two. But we also don't elide away the genuinely fun opportunities for new quests, new challenges, new concerns. And to be clear, sometimes what would be "ordinary goods" in one context are not at all ordinary in another--as an example, if the party had sought rations and water in the period where the Sadalbari ran black and poisoned the water and the fish, yeah, it almost surely would've been a Big Deal purchase rather than a two-minute "you want to buy X? Alright that's 10 dinars", because genuinely that was bordering on End Of The World omen stuff and people were very freaked out. Likewise, if fire-genies were roaming the streets, a potion of fire resistance isn't going to come cheap unless you have something to offer the alchemist in exchange (as occurred in a past event, from my first, failed, attempt to start up this campaign with the original group.)
 

The problem here is that, by your own prior admission, you're not just a player in this game, it's a one-on-one game in which you're also the co-GM. And being co-GM gives you scene-framing rights and abilities most players will never have, which means you've got far more direction (dice-dependent, of course) over how your character's story tries to play out.

That factor alone sets any examples you post from this campaign a long way apart - as in light-years apart - from the way the vast majority of us play. I'd go so far as to posit they're not even reflective of typical BW play, as from what I can tell BW isn't specifically designed for two people each filling the roles of player and GM simultaneously.
As it happens, you're wrong.

And it's strange that you're trying to educate me on a game that, as best I know, you are aware of only through my accounts of it!

I set out relevant rule and principles upthread about 4 weeks ago:
Content authority in Burning Wheel is distributed. For players, it is mediated via tests - typically Circles tests (to have one's PC meet a helpful NPC), Wises tests (to recall some useful bit of information about a place, thing, person, etc), or other knowledge/perception type tests.

<snip>

The BW rulebook has a page setting out the role of the GM, and another setting out "the sacred and most holy role of the players (Revised p 269; the text in Gold is the same), which includes the following:

Players in Burning Wheel must use their characters to drive the story forward - to resolve conflicts and create new ones. . . Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​
 

Remove ads

Top