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

[pemerton]

The issue with the sim agenda is that 'hoping for an encounter' shouldn't change your probabilities of it occurring.

I haven't said that Circles is compatible with any "sim" agenda. I don't even know what your "sim" agenda is.

In this way it actually isn't very different from the farrier example when it come to control.

So at one and the same time, the Circles test is wildly different, but almost the same?

 

[Umbran]

Have you met this group?

I didn't say it was likely, just that would end the argument.

Like, if you stand up in a room with several Spanish chefs in it, and say, "I understand Spanish cuisine. But I don't like paella, because of all the cheese in it," you're going to get chefs telling you there usually isn't chees in paella.

Sticking to your guns about the cheese isn't a good way to end that argument. And goodness knows you won't get the chefs to grant you understand the cuisine that way.

 

[pemerton]

Put the character in a spot and hint at future badness don't seem particularly different

I was quoting from a rulebook. It has text that sets out its rules.

But anyway, here's an example of announcing future badness: You see Plover, but he doesn't see you. He's talking to the mechanic aggressively, and you hear him say your name. The mechanic doesn't look like she's inclined to keep her mouth shut. What do you do?

And here's an example of being put in a spot: Plover is coming at you from one side, and Dremmer from the other. Neither looks happy. What do you do?

 

[pemerton]

The entire problem is arising when the contrafactual is incompatible with the factual.

Didn't someone already post this upthread?

To me, it seems that the real issue is this:

@AlViking and @Maxperson are affirming some restricted version of the following principle: Counterfactual statements about the real world, and counterfactual statements about the fiction, should tightly correlate with one another.

That is why they insist that what would the GM have narrated, had the roll succeeds must correlate tightly with the way causation is working in the fiction. This then leads to an idea that the purpose of the dice roll and the associated decision-making about resolution is to directly model the causal process that is taking place in the fiction.

The RPG that I know that comes closest to an unrestricted version of the above principle is RuneQuest. There are two reasons that I say that @AlViking and @Maxperson are affirming a restricted version of the principle:

(1) There are big chunks of D&D's mechanics, including its surprise mechanics (as per my post not too far upthread), its stop-motion combat resolution (as per a post of mine further upthread), and other stuff too (eg at least some aspects of saving throws and hit points) that don't conform to the principle. It's that failure of conformity to the principle that explains why all the classic simulationist FRPGs that were designed in reaction to D&D (RQ, RM, etc) don't use these resolution mechanics, or at least try to minimise them to a great degree.

(2) They don't adhere to the principle in cases like the farrier you've been discussing with @Maxperson, which @AlViking also distinguished from the guard and cook cases:
The details wouldn't be added but for the player's question, and so the tight correlation principle is not adhered to.

As I also posted some way upthread, these restrictions on the tight correlation principle don't seem readily explicable except as a common way that D&D has done things. That's fine, but doesn't provide the foundation for some sort of principled attack on other approaches (eg for violating the tight correlation principle).

 

[clearstream]

The issue with the sim agenda is that 'hoping for an encounter' shouldn't change your probabilities of it occurring.

BW rules specify that

When you are ready to test Circles to locate a prospective contact, you must state your intent and how you are approaching the task -- your character must write letters, ask around court, buy a round of drinks at the local merc bar, and so on.​

Further wording conditions that the PC must be hoping for an encounter with someone it would be appropriate for them to know based on their previously established fiction. On failure GM has the option to add a new enemy to the fiction.

Caveat, I've only played Torchbearer 2E not Burning Wheel; the Circles rules have strong similarities but are not identical.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This breakdown is absolutely fascinating. It's exactly the kind of post explaining the actual rules of burning wheel that gives me enough detail to meaningfully engage without being told that any of my counterpoints are contradicted by some other hitherto unknown rule. It's also is reminiscent of my experience dealing with Blades in the Dark rules and it's fans. It always seemed many imported much into those rules that the rules didn't explicitly call for by my reading of them.

This is becoming rather surreal. I've quoted the rules - from Hub and Spokes, which can be downloaded for free from DTRPG <https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/98542/burning-wheel-gold-hub-and-spokes> - probably a dozen or more times in this thread, and probably in reply to both of you.

I'll try again.

From pp 9-11, 24-25, 30-31, 72:

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . .

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.

Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities. The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book. . . .

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . . Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. What does your character do? A task should be easily linked to an ability: the Sword skill, the Research skill or the Health attribute. . . .

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . . .

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .

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.​

Here is the rule for "say 'yes' or roll the dice" from p 72 of BW Gold (available for free on DTRPG):

In his game, Dogs in the Vineyard, Vincent Baker articulates a convention of Burning Wheel so well that I’d rather use his words than my own. He says:

Every moment of play, roll dice or say “yes.”

If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.

Sooner or later - sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis - they’ ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.

Roll dice, or say “yes.”​

Vincent’s advice is perfect for Burning Wheel. 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.​

This has to be read in conjunction with other fundamentals of the game, found on pp 9-11, 24-25, 30-31:

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . .

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.

Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities. The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book. . . .

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . . Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. What does your character do? A task should be easily linked to an ability: the Sword skill, the Research skill or the Health attribute. . . .

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . . .

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .​

From p 32:

Failure Complicates the Matter
When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . .The GM must present the players with varied, twisted, occult and bizarre ramifications of their decisions.​

 

[pemerton]

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)?

I'm getting a bit fed up with the implication that I'm lying about a game that I know pretty well. But I've quoted some of the text just upthread.

----------
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.

<snp>

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".

Have you read Vincent's Admonition on p 72?

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.

Have you read p 30?

If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal—he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

I don't know what your heading "Intent and Success" is - there is no such heading on pp 30 to 32 of my copy of Gold Revised, nor in Hub and Spokes which is from Gold.

Here are the examples on pp 30-1:

*“I kill him!” Rich shouts. The GM responds, “Test your Sword skill. That’s what you’re using, right? ” Rich rolls his B5 Sword skill and produces an amazing five successes. The GM consults the Weapons chapter and Anatomy of Injury chapters. “Yep, that does it. He’s a goner. Describe it for us, please!” Rich jumps from his chair, “I decapitate him like so and then stand rigid while making Bruce Lee noises.”

Or: Pete announces,“I want to poison the wizard.” The GM arches his eyebrow, “How so?” Pete’s got a plan: “I’ ll sneak into the kitchen disguised as a Hound Sergeant, then I’ ll Intimidate one of his slaves to take him poisoned tea in the guise of herbal medicine.” The GM considers for a moment, “That’s pretty good. You’ ll need to make a linked test with: Disguise, Inconspicuous and Intimidation, plus Hound-wise, I think.” Pete nods and gets ready to burn some artha. If his rolls are successful, the wizard will be poisoned even though he didn’t drop the poison directly in his mouth. Why? Because Pete stated his intent, described his task and the dice came up in his favor.*

. . .

*“I want to humiliate him. They can’ t ignore me!” shouts Andy, enraged.
“How?” inquires the GM.
“I raise my voice and insult him in front of the entire party. I use my Conspicuous skill.”
“Roll. Your obstacle is 3 to gain the attention of the crowd and be heard. Extra successes will go toward incensing them with the spectacle.”
“Four successes.”
“Your insults are heard flung across the room. Some eyebrows are raised. He stops walking away from you and turns, red in the face. It seems you have a moment in which you are the center of attention.”*

In this example, the player states his intent and task straight away: humiliate his opponent using shouts and insults while testing his Conspicuous skill. The GM embellishes on the result with the
successful test. The target is humiliated and the GM tells the player how​

My experience with D&D play is that killing someone requires reducing their hp to zero. The middle example is not something I've ever heard of from a D&D game. And the last one is the dreaded social mechanics.

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.

I don't know what you mean by "fail forward". But the notion was coined by Ron Edwards and Luke Crane. It is also called "no whiffing".

Here is where BW states "fail forward", on p 32:

Failure Complicates the Matter
When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . Try not to present flat negative results—“You don’t pick the lock.” Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.​

If you want to play a game in which player-established priorities do not matter, and in which the GM does not frame scenes, call for rolls, and narrate consequences having regard to them, then I don't recommend Burning Wheel. I would recommend Rolemaster or HARP.

 

[JConstantine]

Except that--as we have said before--that's not how narrative games actually work.

I was under the impression that the line of discussion was about how to apply the fail-forward principle in D&D (while adhering to D&D's mechanics).

 

[JConstantine]

But there's always background noise - dripping water, the breathing of the hirelings, the clank of the paladin's armour, whatever it is. And smells, and shadows, and . . .

It can't all be narrated.

Sure, but if the ambient noise is loud enough to mask the sound of a group of orcs, surely it's significant enough to warrant narration before the surprise attack, otherwise it can feel like a retcon or a rug-pull.

 

[JConstantine]

I mean, it's at 677 pages already.

Best I can tell, this is the 4th longest thread on the site. The longest is 28,759 posts. These are rookie numbers.