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

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't understand your apparent obsession with telling me that I don't know how to play RPGs that you seem not to be familiar with, and that I have extensive experience with.

In light of the recent challenges over condescending tone and style, this particular action is...frankly galling.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But Prince Valiant is not all that character-driven. Edwards, in his essay on narrativism, distinguishes character, setting and situation as sources of (what he calls) premise; which, in Baker's formulation, is the source of the conflict across a moral line. In Burning Wheel that's the PC, and because the core mode of PC build in BW is by the player, the player plays a big role in establishing what the conflict and the moral line will be.

Whereas in Prince Valiant, the main source of premise/conflict is the situation, which is generally presented by the GM, so (as I think you've intuited) the player plays less of a role in establishing that.

Understood.

In my Prince Valiant game, as play goes on and the characters get more established, character as a source of premise/conflict increases. But in BW it's there from the start.

Your Prince Valiant game describes how I see my current game progressing or perhaps where I am intentionally nudging the table (the players) towards.

Burning Wheel can be played in a way where the GM establishes the conflict (at least at the start) and the players' role is then to play it out according to their authorship: namely, by having the GM prepare pre-gens and an initial situation. This is how the demo module The Sword works (that got discussed somewhere upthread). And here's an example of that that I wrote, in the same context ("Not the Iron DM") as After the Battle:

This example was also great. The conflict is immediate between the PCs and has room to escalate, bring about new questions and reveal unwelcome truths during the course of play behind the original background as written.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thanks!

It's not necessarily planning - I've used a lot of pre-written scenarios in Prince Valiant because the rulebook includes them, and when I got it (via Kickstarter) it shipped with an Episode Book that had more of them. But some of the ones in the Episode book need reworking (like the Rein*Hagen one, which is unplayable as written) and I've also come up with stuff spontaneously when I've needed it.

But Prince Valiant is not all that character-driven. Edwards, in his essay on narrativism, distinguishes character, setting and situation as sources of (what he calls) premise; which, in Baker's formulation, is the source of the conflict across a moral line. In Burning Wheel that's the PC, and because the core mode of PC build in BW is by the player, the player plays a big role in establishing what the conflict and the moral line will be.

Whereas in Prince Valiant, the main source of premise/conflict is the situation, which is generally presented by the GM, so (as I think you've intuited) the player plays less of a role in establishing that.

In my Prince Valiant game, as play goes on and the characters get more established, character as a source of premise/conflict increases. But in BW it's there from the start.

Burning Wheel can be played in a way where the GM establishes the conflict (at least at the start) and the players' role is then to play it out according to their authorship: namely, by having the GM prepare pre-gens and an initial situation. This is how the demo module The Sword works (that got discussed somewhere upthread). And here's an example of that that I wrote, in the same context ("Not the Iron DM") as After the Battle:

This has been helpful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The point is, there shouldn't be offense given at all. People have been using this disparaging terminology for years and they continue to do so because biased authors wrote articles demeaning other playstyles that they didn't like by coming up with these derogatory terms. Like somehow the fact that someone else came up with the derogatory term makes it okay for them to use. It doesn't.

It's not on me to put up with disparaging terminology. It's on the offenders to stop using it and come up with something neutral.

That’s a rather quantum opinion you have!

 

[Faolyn]

I assume you are stating your experience and preference here.

No, I'm stating a pretty well known part of writing. You can't have a piece be all something all the time. To quote Asimov, "you can't build a symphony on just one note." He was talking about dystopias/utopias there, but it makes sense for all genres. If something is 100% something, it becomes parodic.

If you mean that, of course, there will be local moments of resolution from time to time, well that is true. But if you mean that there should be significant periods of low- or no-stakes play, I don't share that preference.

I was responding to "but it's not sustained in any way." You don't want it sustained all the time.

No I'm not. As I think would be apparent from various examples of play that I've posted.

I wouldn't know. As I've said repeatedly, your various examples are too long and fail to get to any necessary point, and often don't even get to the point that you're claiming they do.

But RPGing that spends a of time on low- or no-stakes play - eg shopping, discussing niceties while drinking tea, etc - does not involve rising conflict.

It can. Not physical conflict, but mental/verbal. Tea time is a great time for making sniping comments at one another, bless your heart. And anyone who has ever gone shopping with anyone else knows how much conflict there can be during that.

The PCs didn't create anything in the dungeon. They discovered it, were exploring it, and got lost in it.

Uh-huh. Was the exit there all the time, or did the players/PCs have to roll for it?

The players established various things about the dungeon. You ask why should they? I answer, why shouldn't they? Making stuff up, in the context of RPGing, is fun. It's one of the points of the hobby. (At least for me.)

Making stuff up, sure. The players/PCs making stuff up, sure. "Hoping" a rune means something when there is no actual in-game reason for it to mean something (was the exit right there?), rolling some dice, and viola! it means exactly that--that, as I said, rather beggars belief.

Huh? First, there is nothing about the fantasy genre that mandates map and key resolution. I ran plenty of D&D 4e without map-and-key resolution (unless you want to tell me I was doing that wrong too).

I didn't say that it had to have a map and key. I generally don't make them due to laziness and because I suck at mapping. But there's a difference between the GM knowing that there's an exit and its rough position and waiting for the players to decide to roll some dice to see if its right here.

Second, the Cortex+ Hacker's Guide, which is what I drew on to develop my fantasy variant, sets out a fantasy variant of MHRP. And here is Cam Banks reply to one of my actual play reports:

Don't care about actual play. I care about the rules for this.

Actually, I don't even care about that. My goal was to point out that there's a huge difference between a farrier, which makes sense for a player/PC to "create" by saying there should be one in the area, and for a player/PC to actually dictate the meaning of ancient runes or the layout of a dungeon via dice roles. And you need to understand why people are pushing back on the latter but not on the former. And why people don't buy your "PCs don't decide to kill an orc" explanation, because monsters have numerical values (hit points) which can be reduced to zero via combat but the runes had no system attached other than the PC "hoping."

So if you have a problem, take it up with Cam Banks and team. (Maybe you think he doesn't understand the game either?)

I don't understand your apparent obsession with telling me that I don't know how to play RPGs that you seem not to be familiar with, and that I have extensive experience with.

Well, you have indicated a belief that when Vince Baker said "don't prep plots; prep situations" he actually meant "don't prep plots or situations," due to what has looked like quite a big misunderstanding in understanding the GM's roll in PbtA games, so...

 

[Maxperson]

That’s a rather quantum opinion you have!

What are you going on about quantum for? Nothing in that statement simultaneously is one thing and another until something happens to fix it. If you're going to try and mock me, at least get it right.

What's even more sad is that you got two people to laugh at that claptrap.

Edit: Now three people who don't get it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The point is, there shouldn't be offense given at all. People have been using this disparaging terminology for years and they continue to do so because biased authors wrote articles demeaning other playstyles that they didn't like by coming up with these derogatory terms. Like somehow the fact that someone else came up with the derogatory term makes it okay for them to use. It doesn't.

It's not on me to put up with disparaging terminology. It's on the offenders to stop using it and come up with something neutral.

No, a lot of it isn't disparaging at all Max, unless you find any analysis of game play disparaging to you. Basically what you are doing now is a move in a kind of censorship. And yes, I know, many truly reprehensible people start with this argument. I'm not interested in pushing it to justify slurs, etc. but there's a level of discussion that is critical analysis and not denigration. Just be careful how far you push, lest there be no room left to talk at all.

 

[Maxperson]

No, a lot of it isn't disparaging at all Max, unless you find any analysis of game play disparaging to you.

The terminology is disparaging. The analysis, depends on how the authors word it. I've seen some authors be disparaging with their analysis, and some authors not. Terms like "Princess Play" and "Play to find Out What's in the DM's Notes," etc. are disparaging terms and the analysis can be done just as well with neutral terms.

Basically what you are doing now is a move in a kind of censorship. And yes, I know, many truly reprehensible people start with this argument. I'm not interested in pushing it to justify slurs, etc. but there's a level of discussion that is critical analysis and not denigration. Just be careful how far you push, lest there be no room left to talk at all.

Disparaging terms are not critical analysis. They're irrelevant to critical analysis, so use non-disparaging terms.

Nothing is being censored. And my advice is sound. The derogatory terms used by people here when they post or start threads is an automatic derailment of their post or thread. Folks will take umbrage at the terms and defend their playstyle, and then that's what it becomes about.

Use of those terms = self-sabotage. You aren't going to get what you want out of the post or thread unless what you wanted was an argument over the disparaging terminology.

 

[Hussar]

Since you understand the meaning, why not suggest an acceptable term and we can all use that and move on instead of endlessly kvetching about a term?

 

[Maxperson]

Since you understand the meaning, why not suggest an acceptable term and we can all use that and move on instead of endlessly kvetching about a term?

I already pointed out one that would work. But unless the people here who use the derogatory terms demonstrate a verbal willingness here to really change which terms they use, I'm not going to bother to put out the effort. It would just be wasted.