But that was explicitly not the case in the example you presented. The players presented "maybe there's butter here?" and the GM approved, and then there was butter. No randomizer came into play.
A "theory" thread
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
JAMUMU
go, hunt. kill haribos.
Wasn't my example, didn't present it. It was an anecdote @niklinna provided in response to my post.
My examples might be: "Is there a chance this guard secretly sympathises with the rebels?" "Is there any chance this character is also homoseggshual and thus open to my attempts at flattery?" "Is there a chance the Baron's rangers are camped in this ruined tower we are approaching?" "Is there a chance that this random shepherdess has experience of the lycanthropes?" "Is there a chance the gravedigger has knowledge of the Eaters of the Dead?"
GM: Dunno "picks up die" let's find out...
Oh sorry, that's my mistake trying to put this together on my phone. I'll clean that up.Hey! That was my example.Also I only said @JAMUMU's idea reminded of that session, and that it proably wasn't exactly what he was getting at. But the DM could have easily rolled a die to see if there was butter instead of saying "well why not?".
Okay this is interesting to me, because you're presenting exclusively situations that the players can't perceive, which I'd originally proposed as a necessary qualifier.
Perhaps that isn't the case though. I would personally not resolve all those proposals the same way. The last two of these are some kind of knowledge/information check, which I would generally resolve for these characters exactly the same way I would for a PC. The first three I would not accept as PC proposals, unless they were in fact already true of those characters (or sufficiently inspiring that I could retroactively decide they were true, a different process*), and then I would only inform the PCs if they had some means to find them out.
Having written that, I was going to propose modifying away from "can be perceived with the senses" as a prerequisite, but I don't think it's necessary. Those examples that I wouldn't resolve that way are pointing toward other skill based resolution systems for which I maintain PC/NPC equivalency as a first design principle.
Edit: I forgot to talk about the random element outside of the skill checks. A GM deciding to use a randomizer to create a portion of the world is a pretty established practice, and I don't see much difference between a GM assenting to a PC proposal or deferring that to a randomizer, that's basically the same thing with an extra step.
*This process is not, I would argue, a process of play, but a separate act of inspiration. It's more closely linked to say, a friend describing an interesting bit of a novel they'd read recently and that forming the basis for a villain or a merchant or something in my prep later.
Last edited:
niklinna
no forge waffle!
Total tangent but I am curious about this spelling! I looked it up and only found this
JAMUMU
go, hunt. kill haribos.
It's arguable that the players might not be able to perceive some of these things, but it's arguable that the characters might be able to.
So sometimes it's exploring the "vibe" a character might pick up, one that the GM hasn't prepped for, that the player doesn't know is present. But the character, in that situation might.
Like the time one of my friends was behind a police cordon, very much gone on hallucinogenic drugs. There were maybe six police-people forming the cordon, but the one I approached and asked if we could perhaps retrieve my friend, real quiet like, before the iron fist of the state shut over them like a vice? Yeah, that was the right copper to ask.
For the things that are totally outside player and character perception, these are possibilities, ideas. Maybe the GM comes up with them in the moment, in addition to any preparation. Maybe a player thinks it up as part of the conversational flow. These are the times to use a randomiser.
My point, i guess, if there is one, is that this place of uncertainty is where the good stuff happens, happenings and events and coincidences that take the session/campaign in unexpected directions.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Agreed that players will ask questions like "do I hear snoring?" That's fine, players in Dungeon World name their moves too. These are simply procedural issues that can be passed over 95% of the time.
Stuff like "are the King's Rangers camping here" is where things get interesting. In DW I probably say "dunno, are they?" In BW it could be a Circles check. In D&D the DM may answer however they want. In all these the answers to questions are often interesting ala @Pedantic.
Stuff like "are the King's Rangers camping here" is where things get interesting. In DW I probably say "dunno, are they?" In BW it could be a Circles check. In D&D the DM may answer however they want. In all these the answers to questions are often interesting ala @Pedantic.
The Shadow
Hero
So... many... jokes...!
Baron Opal II
Hero
Interesting thread! I am far more an Applied than Theoretical Gamer, but I am definitely here to learn.
d20 <=10; Pass / Fail as per typical, but likely fail.
d20 11-19; Pass / Weak Pass, per result. "Yes, but", if you will.
d20 >= 20; Strong Pass, per result. "Yes, and", if you will.
Being in sections of 10, it is easier to parse if you get a Weak Pass result. If your character's skill is low, you likely get Fail / Weak Pass / Pass as your trinary results. High skill can net Weak Pass / Pass / Strong Pass.
(One thing I've noted- it seems that in some systems you can't repeat the attempt to bypass an obstacle. So, the thief tries to pick the lock, fails. The fighter tries to kick the door down, fails. The wizard rolls their eyes, casts knock, and opens the door. It sounds like in some systems the situation immediately changes when the first person tries to open the door and there isn't necessarily an opportunity for the other two to change the situation. This may be a tangent, though.)
RQ had a chart to assess a pentatary result roll, but it becomes cumbersome after a while.
You listen at the door. You have 1 in 6 chance of hearing something, 2 in 6 as an elf, with better odds as a thief of increasing level. If you succeed you hear something if there is something to be heard.
I imagine it is due to the difficulty in adroitly assessing a trinary result from a single die roll. I've been able to do so with:
d20 <=10; Pass / Fail as per typical, but likely fail.
d20 11-19; Pass / Weak Pass, per result. "Yes, but", if you will.
d20 >= 20; Strong Pass, per result. "Yes, and", if you will.
Being in sections of 10, it is easier to parse if you get a Weak Pass result. If your character's skill is low, you likely get Fail / Weak Pass / Pass as your trinary results. High skill can net Weak Pass / Pass / Strong Pass.
(One thing I've noted- it seems that in some systems you can't repeat the attempt to bypass an obstacle. So, the thief tries to pick the lock, fails. The fighter tries to kick the door down, fails. The wizard rolls their eyes, casts knock, and opens the door. It sounds like in some systems the situation immediately changes when the first person tries to open the door and there isn't necessarily an opportunity for the other two to change the situation. This may be a tangent, though.)
RQ had a chart to assess a pentatary result roll, but it becomes cumbersome after a while.
I can work with this as a baseline definition. I would quibble a bit with #1. "Players participate together in evolving the the common fiction through play." This would be without differentiating a DM from players, which I believe would be further down in taxonomy.
What? I may be being confused by jargon, but, of course you can.
You listen at the door. You have 1 in 6 chance of hearing something, 2 in 6 as an elf, with better odds as a thief of increasing level. If you succeed you hear something if there is something to be heard.
Why is this a good Burning Wheel example?
Last edited:
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yes, but what use is it for the player to ask if they hear snoring? I mean, maybe AFTER the GM says you hear 'something' you might ask "is it snoring", perhaps. Mostly I was just pointing out that the content of fiction is entirely the domain of the GM.
Why don't you use your knowledge of BW to provide your own thoughts?
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I am only passingly familiar with the core BW game. I would simply observe that it would be a pretty solid start to a Dungeon World game. TECHNICALLY the technique is supposed to be "ask questions (as the GM) and use the answers" where here the players clearly are rather familiar with each other and how they play, so they're just freewheeling it. From this point the GM probably WOULD start asking more specific questions, though PC creation (pick playbooks, allocate attributes, select starting equipment, special abilities, bonds, alignment, and race) would happen first, probably with some questioning to ascertain the significance of each choice and what it says about the setting. After that the GM will probably ask some questions that form the equivalent of a 'kicker', placing the PCs in a specific starting scene.
So, I expect its a reasonable BW start of a game too, as I am pretty sure BW itself assumes a fairly low myth style of play.
Baron Opal II
Hero
I have none, other than the latest edition is a very pretty, thick, digest sized book that was at too high a price point to pick up at the time as an impulse purchase.
I see. Yes, pretty much.
Okay. I ask because it was similar to the conversations that I have at the beginning of my D&D campaigns. This didn't seem really revelatory to me. How can I build interesting and entertaining adventures without knowing why the PCs are adventuring? I guess that this is explictly stated to be a good thing in BW?
I don't understand the question.
Baron Opal II
Hero
You mentioned previously an abridged pre-game example of BW, if I understand correctly. This process seemed to explicitly go over PC motivations, personal complications, and possible avenues of adventure that would have greater meaning for said characters. I take it this is something that is explicitly stated as a good idea in BW? Is there a particular method or rubric for this process?
Yes. It's in what was the Adventure Burner, now called the Codex.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, sure, but D&D is not low myth. The GM will build some sort of milieu, adventures, etc. Often this is done before character generation, maybe before consultation with players. In DW a steading, maps, and fronts all follow after play starts and build ONLY on the elements which come out of play. Later the GM will invent at least one plot that is ongoing and relates to the PCs but isn't driven by them.
Basically though what was presented in that conversation would shape all that. The 'Sheriff' would come around, the local church would help the PCs, but maybe the 'Bishop' would support the 'bad King' etc. Maybe the GM will work in some elves or something too.
Baron Opal II
Hero
"Low myth"? That's a new term. Okay.
There's no reason why that can't happen, but I certainly agree that is not commonplace or the expectation.
Well the term might be new to you, but the idea shouldn't be. If they'd said low setting load would that have made more sense? The idea is that D&D, generally speaking, has a huge load of pre-written setting stuff. This is not the case with some other games.
