Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9471919" data-attributes="member: 42582">Here's one example: <a href="https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/gamemastering/first-session/" target="_blank">First Session – Dungeon World SRD</a>You seem to be struggling to draw some connections that I think the author of the rules took to be obvious.So, as you note, it says "situations presented by the GM". It also says that "The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities." So multiple things are true of the situations in question:*They are presented by the GM; *They are presented to the players; *They involve problems (this is probably a tautology, given that "situation" is being used in the same sort of sense as it is used in discussing other narrative forms); *Those problems are based on priorities determined by the players.And I gave an example: one priority the player has established for his PC is to find a magical item in Hardby that will help him deal with his brother being possessed by a Balrog. And I present a problem based on that priority: a peddler is offering an angel feather for sale (but the PC is broke, as per the outcome of the PC generation process).So I as GM did not "do only what the player told me to do". The player didn't say anything about a peddler, or a feather. (The player did raise the idea of something angelic.)I took the players priority, and their idea of something angelic, and I based a problem on that. And right there is the collaboration that I and others have mentioned, the riffing on one another's ideas.Your caricature of the resolution rules suggests to me that you haven't downloaded and read the free rulebook that your are purporting to comment on.I am guessing that the only form of systematised action resolution you are used to is D&D combat. I also guess that you are also familiar with the idea that, in D&D combat, if the player makes a to hit roll that (once adjusted by appropriate modifiers) is sufficient to hit the enemy's AC, then the rules say that the GM announces the hit, the player gets to roll damage dice, and the GM subtracts the result of that damage roll from the running tally of the enemy's hit points. If those hp reach zero, then the GM is obliged to announce that the enemy is defeated (typically by having been killed).No one describes D&D combat as "the DM just sits there with a shrug and "well the rules say  you win and the players point to Page 11 and say 'haha, you can't do anything DM!'" Do they? I mean, the whole point of the combat rules is to take the question of who wins out of the hands of a single decision-maker, and to instead make it a matter of game play (which includes, but is not confined to, the luck of the dice rolls).I understand that you are not familiar with the idea that such an approach might be extended beyond combat, even though the idea is at least as old as 1977 (I'm thinking of Classic Traveller, which has dice-base action resolution rules for quite a range of non-combat action declarations). But here is an example - Classic Traveller's rules for vacc suit use (Book 1, 1977 ed, p 16):A basic throw of 10+ [on 2d6] to avoid dangerous situation applies whenever any non-ordinary maneuver is attempted by an individual wearing a vacc suit (such as running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, etc). D[ie ]M[odifier]: +4 per level of expertise. When such an incident occurs, it may be remedied by any character with vacc suit expertise (including the character in danger himself) on a throw of 7+. DM: +2 per level of expertise. No expertise DM: -4So if the player whose PC is wearing a vacc suit declares some non-ordinary manoeuvre, such as one of the examples given or something else similarly risky (eg in one of my Traveller sessions it was wriggling through a tight space) then a roll is called for. If it succeeds, the PC performs their manoeuvre without suffering any adverse consequence from the risk they took in relation to their life support gear. If the throw fails, then the GM narrates an "incident" that is a "dangerous situation" (eg one time, when GMing Traveller, I narrated a snagged oxygen pipe). The players are then entitled to declare an action to remedy the situation. If that action is declared, and the resulting throw succeeds, then - in the fiction - the situation has been resolved (eg the oxygen pipe is un-snagged). If that throw fails, then the GM is at liberty to bring home the danger inherent in the situation (eg the most recent time this happened in my game, a PC's suit ruptured, and the PC was therefore exposed to the freezing temperatures of the ice world they were on).Anyway, this Traveller mechanic is, in its essence, closer to Apocalypse World ("if you do it, you do it") than Burning Wheel ("intent and task"). But it is a simple illustration of how mechanical, dice-based resolution can be extended outside of the domain of wargame-style combat.In Burning Wheel, as you can read for yourself (on pp 13 and 72 of the Hub and Spokes) what the basic rules are for when to roll:Burning Wheel is very much a game. While players undertake the roles of their characters and embellish their actions with performance and description, rolling the dice determines success or failure and, hence, where the story goes. . . . 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. Success or failure doesn’t really matter. So long as the intent of the task is clearly stated, the story is going somewhere.You are just wrong to say that "No matter what goal the PCs have they will just auto do it" because - as per the quotes from the rules in my post upthread, and the further quote just above - if a player fails a roll to resolve a declared action, than their intent is not achieved. Which is to say, that they don't achieve their goal. And the maths of Burning Wheel are calibrated to ensure that this is quite a common outcome.But when the players fail, the GM will - following the rules of the game - frame a new situation that speaks to the players' priorities for their PC. In that way the game will go forward: it's not the case that everyone just packs up and goes home!You seem to prefer a game in which one person bosses many others around!</blockquote>

Verification