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

[Hussar]

For like the umpteenth time, there is no teleportation or quantum involved with wandering monsters. None. These are all monsters that live in the habitat they are encountered in and the party is traveling through.

And, thus we keep up the pretense.

Ask yourself this. Why did that group of monsters just happen to meet the party at that point in time at that location? It was all randomly generated. There is absolutely no difference between deciding that one completely arbitrary random roll results in an encounter and another completely arbitrary random roll that results in an encounter.

And, then, ask yourself this. Why was there a random encounter roll at all? After all, the odds of a random encounter with a monster are FAR too high to be realistic. That's been established since the early days of 1e. The wilderness encounter rules, if they actually applied to the world, would result in a world that no one could ever travel in. 16(ish) percent chance of a random monster 3 times per day? That's ridiculous.

But, it makes for a fun game. And wandering around for weeks at at time, maybe going an entire session without meeting anything interesting? No one wants to play that game. That would be boring. So, we ramp up the chances of random encounters, not because of any in world logic or anything like that, but because it makes the game fun. And then we backfill the narrative, retroactively building the encounter into the game, making it just plausible enough that we can nod and wink and pretend that it's a "living world".

The only difference between anyone here in this thread is that some of us don't feel a particular need to place a giant lampshade over what we're doing. We're all doing exactly the same thing. We randomly generate events based on mostly arbitrary reasons in order to make the game more interesting. The fact that you only want to base your random events on time and others want to base it on other die roll triggers makes zero difference. It's all in service to making the game interesting.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

The tall grass ambush is a perfect example. The question that needs to be asked is, "Why is the grass tall?" After all, it wasn't described as particularly tall until the ambush occurred. The players had no chance to react to the idea that something might be hidden in tall grass until the ambush occurred.

It doesn't need to be described in detail, just mentioned unless a PC asks more about it, or has a high enough passive perception, otherwise it's just grass until the ambush is triggered or noticed.
It is up to the PC to ask or ignore not the DM to telegraph. Kinda like a trap or Mimic et al.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn't need to be described in detail, just mentioned unless a PC asks more about it, or has a high enough passive perception, otherwise it's just grass until the ambush is triggered or noticed.
It is up to the PC to ask or ignore not the DM to telegraph. Kinda like a trap or Mimic et al.

Oh, come on. The ONLY reason the grass suddenly becomes long is because of the ambush, not the other way around. The DM wouldn't have even bothered describing the grass until the encounter occurred. Let's not pretend otherwise. Do you seriously describe the length of grass every single minute of travel?

This is purely post hoc retroactively filling in the details so that the game flows.

 

[Enrahim]

In particular, this will draw attention to the precise details of BW's rules for scene-framing (RM doesn't have clear rules for this, but just assumes the GM will extrapolate particular situations from their setting prep plus encounter rolls), its rules for when the dice are to be rolled (RM doesn't have entirely clear rules for this either, but when I played it we defaulted to AW-esque "if you do it, you do it" but for every action taken by a character - so lots of rolls!), and its rules for how consequences are to be established (RM does have clear rules for this, based around the various combat, manoeuvre and skill resolution tables). Paying attention to those details will help a RM GM (like me) understand what BW is telling me to do differently, and why.

This prompted me to finally pick up my copy of Burning Wheel Revised Edition. You seem to claim there are clear rules for

• scene framing
• when the dice are to be rolled
• how consequences are to be established

So I went looking for those.

For scene framing the only mention I could find of scene at all is in the appendix under the role of "Role of the GM" (page 268) where it says. "More than any other player, the GM controls the flow of the game. He has the power to begin and end scenes, to present challenges and instigate conflicts." "Scene" is not an entry in the index. Could you please point me to the relevant section(s)?
----------
Regarding when dice are to be rolled we have from the hub under the heading "When to roll" sub heading "Tests" (page 16): "When a player takes an action with his character where the result is uncertain, an ability is tested. When we need to know ho well, how much or how quickly a character performs in game, we roll the dice." A bit later we have "In fact in a situation involving conflict, a test is required". This very formulation strongly indicate that there are other situations where the rules are not clearly defining rolling the dice.. Finally we have "A player cannot narrate an act in the game that will affect another character without testing an ability to back it up". This final cannot be seriously taken as a hard well defined rule, as that would prohibit any action affecting what another character can see to take one of infinitely many ridiculous effects of trying to interpret it as a hard literal rule. (pat on the back, giving a voluntary hair cut, helping them get around after having broken their legs)

Staying on that topic a little bit more. When we get to the Spokes under "Testing Your Abilities" (page 26) we do have the formulation "Dice rolls called for by the GM and the players are at the heart of play". When to roll is not covered in the summary "Testing Abilities in Brief", is not explicitly mentioned under the appendixes of GM and Player responsibilities beyond indirectly trough the wide concept of "mechanics". Overall I feel like there are no more instructions about how to use the rules than in D&D. It is for instance common practice for players to request checks in D&D, so this being specifically called out is nothing profound making BW stand apart.
------
Finally regarding how consequences are to be established. This really surprised me as I thought from what you had said that BW was a "get intent on success" game with hard "fail forward" rules - and this seemed to align decently with my somewhat hazy memory. Looking at the rules though this is not the case at all! Actually it goes out of it way to explain it is not this kind of game.

Take get intent on success: Under the heading "Intent" page 27 we have the following formulation "The results, wether or not the target actually dies from the bolow - as desired by the attacker - is determined by the results of a die roll. Roll well and the character comes closer to accomplishing the stated intent." This is not saying you get the intent on a success. But reading on.

Under the heading Success page 32 we have "If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle the character has succeeded in his goal - completed the task at hand in the manner the player described in the Task and Intent sections" If reading only this you might at first think this is intent being successfully, but it only say you completed the task. There are then 2 instructor segments and one example that try to clarify a bit, but introduces nothing I think would not normally reasonably be read into the proper rules text. Immediately afterward under the subheading "Intent and Success" we get the following formulation "Is the intent successful? That is another matter, largely left to the results of the roll." This is followed by an example showing how differing level of success can affect the intent outcome. The last sentence of the instructor and the section is "Processing success versus intent is a delicate and varied process and is one of the prime duties of the GM." This is not clear rules; and certainly not intent on success. How this differs from any healthy trad play beyond being a bit more explicit about what is going on is beyond me.

There are of course the elements of the Rim that say more about how a success looks like under those particular sub-systems, but again "They aren't 100% neccessary to game play, but they will make the experience of playing this game more rich, fluid and dramatic".

And then for fail forward: Under the heading "Failure" page 34 we have the following formulation "First and most directly, the stated task goal and intent do not come to pass. However, in a failure, intent is more important than the task goal." This indicate that fail forward in terms of the task succeeding is allowed. This is indeed radical. However is it required to make use of this possibility? Reading on.

Next section is "Two Directions". This states that it is the GMs job to declare the failure effect before roll. This mean that if the GM is actually doing their job this section covers the main issue people have complained about as the problem with "fail forward" in a living world context. If the GM state that they will be seen by a cook on the other side on a failure, the players can cry foul if there are no cook there on a success. It wouldn't be an offence against the BW rules, but it would be an offence against the social contract indicating this should be a living world game.

Then we have the section with a name that seem to be would be the big ting saying that fail forward should be used: "Failure complicates the matter". However reading this, that is what this section is saying at all. Rather it is just pointing out the completely uncontroversial point that catastrophic failure is lame. It boils down to little less than the almost completely uncontroversial statement that "save or die is bad".

And the final nail in the coffin of the idea that fail forward is mandated by BW is in the summary "Testing Abilities in Brief" on page 41. There we have "Failure - The character either does not complete the task or completes the task but new conditions presented by the GM interfered with his intent". Simply the thing not happening is a fully accepted outcome. Indeed failure on the task with extra is not an accepted failure outcome according to this. The "complication" is only required if the option of allowing the task itself to succeed is actually employed.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Oh, come on. The ONLY reason the grass suddenly becomes long is because of the ambush, not the other way around. The DM wouldn't have even bothered describing the grass until the encounter occurred. Let's not pretend otherwise. Do you seriously describe the length of grass every single minute of travel?

This is purely post hoc retroactively filling in the details so that the game flows.

Who said it"suddenly becomes long" I would never describe its length at all unless asked. It would always be long, but described as a patch of grass. If no one in the party asks about it's length, of investigates it, it is just grass, same for bushes, rocks rubble et al.

Do you describe only the important things to the plot and arc in the environment? If so when you do you are telegraphing and steering your players and not letting them choose what they want to do. I don't lead my players around their environment, they lead me and I describe what is there in general not detail unless asked.

Example they walk in an area, it is this size, has some trees over here some grass over there, a few piles of rock scattered here here and here. There are some debris scattered about and what ever door/paths et al. Then they ask whatever questions they want and tell me what they want what they are doing. If they don't ask how tall the grass is or what size the rock piles and rubble are then I sure ain't gonna telegraph there is an ambush waiting in the tall grass. If they do ask I will accurately describe the patch of grass and anything else they are curious about.

Because the players assume a patch of grass is a putting green doesn't mean it is one, nor does it mean it suddenly changes height because an ambush is triggered.

My job as DM is to describe the general area, their job as players is to ask about specific parts of that area they are interested about. I am consistent in how I do this from the start of session 1, the only surprises are the ones they overlook, not me making important changes such as grass suddenly going from a few inches tall to tall enough to hide an ambush just to surprise them. It was always that tall, but until they ask or in investigate it, it is just a patch of grass. Same goes for trees with Robinhood esc bandits hiding in and behind them, or a boogyman under the bed, or a cursed sword... It's trees, a bed, and a sword until it is investigated, or triggered some how

 

[Enrahim]

The tall grass ambush is a perfect example. The question that needs to be asked is, "Why is the grass tall?" After all, it wasn't described as particularly tall until the ambush occurred. The players had no chance to react to the idea that something might be hidden in tall grass until the ambush occurred.

In other words, the only reason the grass is particularly tall here is because the DM retroactively needs to justify how the party got surprised. After all, the grass could be short, sparse, or any other thing than tall. Lots of places don't have tall grass. So, why is this, specific place filled with tall grass?

Because the completely arbitrary die rolls - a random encounter roll, a perception roll failure, etc - need to be retroactively narrated in order to make the scene make sense. After all, if the ground was rocky with little or no cover, then the ambush couldn't occur.

There is absolutely no difference between the cook being in the kitchen after a failed lock pick roll and the grass being retroactively made the perfect length. The only difference is which die rolls generated the result. And, note, the die rolls are completely divorced from the narrative. The dice say that an encounter will happen at point X. The dice also tell us that it's an ambush. Nothing the players have done have anything to do with any of these things. The terrain is then rearranged around the party so that it becomes the location for an ambush.

And we all accept this. We all play like this and don't even bat an eye.

The trick is, some people really, REALLY hate it when you shine a light on what's actually occuring in the game because then all those little lies and tricks that we play on ourselves to maintain our suspension of disbelief come crashing down.

Again, it's not a difference of substance but a difference of perception. As usual. The exhausting thing is that we've been having this discussion for decades because people absolutely will not let go of their illusions.

This example would only have been relevant if somehow you on success the grass had to be short. The entire problem is arising when the contrafactual is incompatible with the factual. It is perfectly possible to spot an ambush prepared in the long grass situation. Indeed the long grass is the justification for making the surprise roll at all. If there had not been long grass there, then the situation might very well be such that no surprise would be possible, and hence no roll should be made (per general GM gudelines in a game where the GM is not bound by the rules, and have full freedom to employ the techniques of the game as they deem appropriate for making the most independent feeling world they can).

If there had been a cook in the kitchen on a success on the pick lock, absolutely noone has a problem with the situation. The problem with the situation happens only when it is known that there would't be a cook on a success. How do you know there wouldn't be long grass on a success on the perception check?

(Edit: The reason the grass is not established as tall on success in actual play isn't that the grass isn't tall. It is just that it is irrelevant to the new situation, so noone cares about asking. However when the thief open the door the presence of a cook is presumably of interest to the situation, and hence it's presence or absence has to get established)

 

[Maxperson]

The tall grass ambush is a perfect example. The question that needs to be asked is, "Why is the grass tall?" After all, it wasn't described as particularly tall until the ambush occurred. The players had no chance to react to the idea that something might be hidden in tall grass until the ambush occurred.

In other words, the only reason the grass is particularly tall here is because the DM retroactively needs to justify how the party got surprised. After all, the grass could be short, sparse, or any other thing than tall. Lots of places don't have tall grass. So, why is this, specific place filled with tall grass?

Because the completely arbitrary die rolls - a random encounter roll, a perception roll failure, etc - need to be retroactively narrated in order to make the scene make sense. After all, if the ground was rocky with little or no cover, then the ambush couldn't occur.

There is absolutely no difference between the cook being in the kitchen after a failed lock pick roll and the grass being retroactively made the perfect length. The only difference is which die rolls generated the result. And, note, the die rolls are completely divorced from the narrative. The dice say that an encounter will happen at point X. The dice also tell us that it's an ambush. Nothing the players have done have anything to do with any of these things. The terrain is then rearranged around the party so that it becomes the location for an ambush.

And we all accept this. We all play like this and don't even bat an eye.

The trick is, some people really, REALLY hate it when you shine a light on what's actually occuring in the game because then all those little lies and tricks that we play on ourselves to maintain our suspension of disbelief come crashing down.

Again, it's not a difference of substance but a difference of perception. As usual. The exhausting thing is that we've been having this discussion for decades because people absolutely will not let go of their illusions.

I missed this earlier. As the person who came up with the high grass, I specifically mentioned it as being narrated prior to the encounter.

When a surprise encounter happens, DMs typically resolve the surprise within the bounds of what has already been narrated. Sneaking up through the high grass. Jumping out of a shallow depression covered with something resembling the rocky terrain previously mentioned. And so on.

The DM is rarely going to just make up something new. In my opinion making up something new is a DMing error, as the party would have seen the new part of the terrain well before the attack, or else would have noticed the strange new thing before the attack and been alerted to the unusual terrain feature.

Retroactively adding in details to explain the ambush is a blunder, not a feature of the encounter.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think it's the character's ability rating that evaluates their ability to do something. I'm not quite sure what you see the roll of the dice as evaluating - but in circumstances where luck might play a part (does someone enter the room just as I get the door open? does a guard come and harass me just as I'm trying to find some peace?), to me the dice seem as good a tool as any to resolve that question of luck.

okay but this is part of the core problem you're missing, yes, the dice roll to unlock the door is something that should be influenced by the character's ability rating, however that same dice roll influenced by their stats/skills is also being used to determine their luck in the situation which is something that should not be influenced by their personal capabilities, a better lockpicker is for some reason 'more lucky' and encounters less random complications many of which are entirely tangential to their skill, (edit to add: no matter how skilled whoever it is attempting the lock, if the cook's going to be in the kitchen, then they're going to be in the kitchen, on success or fail, skilled or unskilled.)

this is why the separate rolls like rolling for location, roaming monsters or 'populating the hex' are being asserted so strongly as not the same situation to the cook being there as a complication, because they are separating the aspects influenced by character skill and world chance.

 

[Maxperson]

And, thus we keep up the pretense.

Ask yourself this. Why did that group of monsters just happen to meet the party at that point in time at that location? It was all randomly generated. There is absolutely no difference between deciding that one completely arbitrary random roll results in an encounter and another completely arbitrary random roll that results in an encounter.

And, then, ask yourself this. Why was there a random encounter roll at all? After all, the odds of a random encounter with a monster are FAR too high to be realistic. That's been established since the early days of 1e. The wilderness encounter rules, if they actually applied to the world, would result in a world that no one could ever travel in. 16(ish) percent chance of a random monster 3 times per day? That's ridiculous.

But, it makes for a fun game. And wandering around for weeks at at time, maybe going an entire session without meeting anything interesting? No one wants to play that game. That would be boring. So, we ramp up the chances of random encounters, not because of any in world logic or anything like that, but because it makes the game fun. And then we backfill the narrative, retroactively building the encounter into the game, making it just plausible enough that we can nod and wink and pretend that it's a "living world".

The only difference between anyone here in this thread is that some of us don't feel a particular need to place a giant lampshade over what we're doing. We're all doing exactly the same thing. We randomly generate events based on mostly arbitrary reasons in order to make the game more interesting. The fact that you only want to base your random events on time and others want to base it on other die roll triggers makes zero difference. It's all in service to making the game interesting.

There is no pretense. Rolling specifically for a random encounter is very different than having an encounter because you decided to take a bite out of a poisoned orange and rolled a saving throw. One is connected directly to having the encounter, and the other is ridiculous, since a con save vs. poison has absolutely nothing to do with randomly encountering something.

I will agree with you about the frequency of encounters, though. In the past I have pointed out that PCs are fated/cursed/whatever, and that's why they encounter monsters at such a high frequency. This rate of encountering monsters, though, isn't about wandering monsters. It's about how RPGs in general work.

In addition to wandering monsters, you also have tombs, dungeons, vampire towers in cities, and all the other monsters that the PCs encounter in their adventures. Wandering monsters are actually a small minority of the monsters encountered by groups. And yes, if the entire world encountered monsters at the same rate, civilization would have been destroyed and the civilized races driven extinct millennia ago.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, come on. The ONLY reason the grass suddenly becomes long is because of the ambush, not the other way around. The DM wouldn't have even bothered describing the grass until the encounter occurred. Let's not pretend otherwise. Do you seriously describe the length of grass every single minute of travel?

This is purely post hoc retroactively filling in the details so that the game flows.

This is pretty wrong. If the DM failed to note than the grass on the plains the party entered was very tall when they initially entered, that's a pretty big DM blunder. That sort of detail is narrated all the time. And yes, if the height of the grass changes that significantly, I narrate it each and every time it happens.

Let's not pretend this is something like the grass going from 1 inch tall to 2 inches tall and then back down to 1.5 inches tall. This is grass that is at least waist high. Going from 1 inch grass to waist high grass is noteworthy and therefor is a pertinent detail of travel to describe to the players. Failing to do so is as bad as failing to narrate a tower on the plains that the PCs are walking past prior to them actually standing next to it.