A "theory" thread

[Pedantic]

I don't think vetted/approved by the GM is the gist of what I was aiming at. I think it's when both the players and GM honestly don't know/aren't sure. So the randomiser determines whether the addition happens.

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.

 

[niklinna]

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.

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?".

 

[JAMUMU]

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.

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...

 

[Pedantic]

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?".

Oh sorry, that's my mistake trying to put this together on my phone. I'll clean that up.

 

[Pedantic]

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...

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.

 

[niklinna]

"Is there any chance this character is also homoseggshual and thus open to my attempts at flattery?"

Total tangent but I am curious about this spelling! I looked it up and only found this

 

[JAMUMU]

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.

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]

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.

 

[The Shadow]

Total tangent but I am curious about this spelling! I looked it up and only found this

So... many... jokes...!

 

[Baron Opal II]

Interesting thread! I am far more an Applied than Theoretical Gamer, but I am definitely here to learn.

Pass/fail gameplay can be surprisingly hard to unglue oneself from! I often wonder why.

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.

1. ongoing authorship of common fiction, through a continuous process of drafting and revising, that all participate in
2. regulatory and constitutive rules
3. a linkage from fictional position (and thus the fiction) to the regulatory and constitutive rules

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.

@chaochou is it even POSSIBLE for a player to ask "Do I hear snoring?" in classic D&D? It is NOT an action declaration, nor does it map to any comprehensible action!

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.

I'd contrast with how my group establishes new games. Since you mentioned Burning Wheel, I'll give an example of that. The conversation went a bit like this:
Me: "How about a game set in a folklore-ish medieval England?"
Player A: "Could be good, sort of fantasy Robin Hood?"
Me: "Sure? Like corrupt officials and a greedy and overbearing local lord?"
Player B: "That works if we're going to be a sort of resistance movement or fugitives."
Player C: " We might start out just normal folk who become fugitives."
Me: "Oh, so we could create a remote woodland village with you as some of the common folk and have some tax collectors arrive, and see what develops."
Player A: "Can I run the local mill?"
Me: "Maybe the harvest has been really poor this year."
Player A: "Right! So I'm struggling and we've been out poaching in the deep woods."
Player B: "In that case I'd be the woodsman and hunter who knows those lands - maybe I'm helping you out because I'm hoping to marry your daughter."
Player C: "It would be great to have a minor landowner, but my lands were seized and I've been sheltering in this village with the local priest."

Why is this a good Burning Wheel example?