How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Reynard]

These are Hex Signs, a form of Pennsylvania Dutch Folk Art

Yup. Magic circles. You find similar kinds of things in the rest of the country, based on the folks that settled in those areas. The upper midwest had strong Nordic immigration and so you see folk magic of that sort.

The point is: this stuff isn't the purview of formal education, but tradition. Some rube from Hardbottle might not be able to read the runic circle but probably knows what it is.

 

[Corinnguard]

The point is: this stuff isn't the purview of formal education, but tradition. Some rube from Hardbottle might not be able to read the runic circle but probably knows what it is.

Very true. There aren't that many people who actively study such traditions in RL. In a RPG such as Level Up, knowing runic circles would probably count as a Skill Specialty (read sub-skill) of Arcana.

 

[Corinnguard]

Btw, there is an academic study of RL runic alphabets called Runology. Runology - Wikipedia

 

[Cadence]

Yup. Magic circles. You find similar kinds of things in the rest of the country, based on the folks that settled in those areas. The upper midwest had strong Nordic immigration and so you see folk magic of that sort.

The point is: this stuff isn't the purview of formal education, but tradition. Some rube from Hardbottle might not be able to read the runic circle but probably knows what it is.

Does it matter if they can tell a real one from a fake one, or tell what it provides for protection from?

What havoc can some crafty Kobolds cause if they put a bunch of fake ones everywhere in a dungeon that has a couple real ones?

 

[Reynard]

Does it matter if they can tell a real one from a fake one, or tell what it provides for protection from?

Could there be fake ones? Assuming circles make magic, SOME force might be interested even if someone is just doodling. Magic doesn't have to be precise, and folk magic in particular is highly artistic and subjective.

What havoc can some crafty Kobolds cause if they put a bunch of fake ones everywhere in a dungeon that has a couple real ones?

That would be hilarious, especially if combined with the idea that the kobolds did not realize that their fake circles drew the attention of something else...

 

[pemerton]

How does that work? What are player character "beliefs" in this context? Established fiction?

I've posted some actual play illustrations not far upthread, in post 1307.

 

[Reynard]

I've posted some actual play illustrations not far upthread, in post 1307.

I saw it after I responded. Thanks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Wouldn't you turn to someone more knowledgeable on a particular subject if you could?

It depends on the situation, I suppose.

It seems to me that very often people challenge those who are more knowledgable on a particular subject. Especially when wikipedia’s available!

 

[pemerton]

Here's what makes The Burning Wheel an outlier for those of us in the D&D community

I don't accept your characterisation of, and apparent assertion of ownership of, the "D&D community".

I first played D&D in the early 1980s. I have GMed many hundreds, quite possibly thousands, of hours of D&D. My most recent long-running D&D game was a 7+ year, 1st to 30th level 4e D&D game. My most recent engagement with a D&D module has been my conversion of the T1 moathouse to Torchbearer 2e.

I am as much a member of the "D&D community" - if there is such a thing - as you are. I don't accept your description of my RPGing as an "outlier" against some supposed norm that you claim to speak on behalf of.

From Wikipedia:

Players generate a detailed background history for their characters, along with core motivations and ethics (Instincts and Beliefs) that connect them to the storyline and to the other player characters (PCs). Story develops organically rather than being pre-scripted, as a number of the game mechanics exist to prevent the gamemaster (GM) from dominating the game's direction and to help promote co-operation and trust between the players. (This is distinct from co-operation among the characters, who may argue or fight within the context of the rules.) Examples of such mechanics include pre-negotiated roll or scene outcomes, the 'Let it Ride' rule, and the absence of hidden information.

This description is not entirely accurate. And in any event I don't need Wikipedia to explain this game to me. I am quite familiar with it. And I posted the key "how to play" text upthread - which is taken directly from the rulebook, and hence is more accurate than Wikipedia.

D&D and The Burning Wheel do have one thing in common.

The GM is encouraged to create problems and challenges that specifically probe and test the Beliefs and Instincts of the PCs, and as a consequence characters frequently undergo significant change in their goals and attitudes over time.

I am not sure if today's GMs in 5e D&D really dominate the game direction so much as they ask the players as to where they want to go next or do next in an adventure. They let the players decide for themselves on either of these two issues and thus promote the very same thing mentioned here in The Burning Wheel RPG. Co-operation and trust.

I don't think it's true that the 5e D&D rulebooks encourage the GM to create problems and challenges that specifically probe and test the Beliefs and Instincts of the PCs. I mean, just to begin with, 5e PCs don't have Beliefs or Instincts as part of their build.

Upthread you've repeatedly talked about your D&D play involving playing through a GM-authored adventure. By definition, that sort of play cannot be doing the same thing as the BW GM is doing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t think it’s aboutGM authorship, so much as what prompts the GM to author something.

I think that’s the big difference in many games, and it can be difficult to notice. Especially in online discussion rather than in play.

Someone earlier (@TwoSix I believe, please correct me if I’m wrong) talked about a GM framing a scene at a wizard’s tower because that’s what the GM had prepped, or framing a scene at a wizard’s tower because one of the PCs had a reason to go to the tower.

Of course someone immediately said “what’s the difference, it’s still a wizard’s tower”. But that’s just because of the nature of the example.

Suppose none of the PCs had any reason to be at a wizards tower? In that case, for many games, it would be poor form for the GM to frame a scene there. Not without some compelling reason for one of the PCs.

In many games, the GM is free to introduce such a scene by any means they like. Either because the hex the PCs have entered indicates a wizard’s tower is there, or because a random encounter table says it should happen, or because the GM had a cool idea for an encounter and wants to use it, or because the GM stubbed his toe last Tuesday.

It’s not THAT the GM authors elements and introduces them into play, it’s WHY they do so.

Eh. I don't really think there is much of a difference in practice. If a chracter is looking for their missing sister and it is then revealed that she was kidnapped by a mysterious cult, it doesn't much matter whetherThe GM came up with the idea of the cult before and then it occurred to them that the sister thing could be related to that, or whether the GM came up with the cult whilst thinking about the missing sister. If you integrate it well it will feel just as compelling regardless of which thought occurred in the GM's head first. I care much more about the end results than whether the GM arrived to those results by following the orthodox dogma.

That depends on what you mean by system.

Many games outline actual principles for playing and for GMing. While perhaps these are not rules in the technical sense, I think the general expectation is that they should be observed.

Other games don’t really provide such clearly defined principles. Or, as is the case with D&D 5e in my opinion, they don’t want to alienate any of the various play cultures to which they are trying to appeal, and so never commit to such principles in favor of a “do whatever works for you” approach.

Neither method nor any others we may consider is better than the other (except as a matter of preference) but they are different.

If I frame a scene in Stonetop, I’m doing so based on the intent of the players, and I’m framing it in such a way to reflect their Instincts (a chosen goal/ethos) or other elements that I know they care about.

I’m never going to just say “ohh a wizard’s tower would be a cool thing for them to find on their way to the next town”. Instead, I’m going to wait until the dice indicate something should happen, and then I’m going to frame a scene that speaks to the characters in some way.

I prefer if the game doesn't have the one way this must always be done. If we look the best TV show ever, Star Trek TNG, then we see that some episodes are very character driven and revolve around the characters' backstories and their personal growth, whilst others are more about just solving a problem. And that is fine! More than fine, it is preferable. I am not saying that all games need to be as wishy-washy about their premises than D&D, but I also feel that some of these indie darling games (and their fans) are so narrow and dogmatic about the correct way to play them that to me it feels uncomfortably constraining. A lot of popular media allows much more variety in its storytelling within a single show.