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

[Faolyn]

Just google tourists in Yellowstone getting gored by bison. Some people are not frightened by an animal that can weigh up to a ton that can easily toss you 20 feet through the air and prove it by trying to pet them. Same with approaching grizzly bears, dunking in water hot enough to burn you alive and when you fall in all they find are your shoes. The list goes on.

This is true. It could very well be that they all succeeded on their saving throws, though, which rather suggests that Int penalties should be treated as bonuses on fear saves.

 

[Faolyn]

The first of those examples is @pemerton comparing BW to another game that they continually advocate for on these boards (TB2).

The second is in response to a post where you, YOU, asked "I'm looking for you to say "I feel that Burning Wheel does <thing> well because of <reason>". Come on. You literally asked for a subjective answer.

Of course.

Also, so what? I write I Messages in basically every single post I make and the one time I forget, I'm a terrible person imposing my beliefs on everyone, but because pemerton really, really likes a game and talks about it all the time, it's OK for him to do the same thing?

 

[Faolyn]

But, that focus on the peripheral aspects of play and failing to understand what is central is exactly what leads us to doubt the nature and depth of that experience you claim. Like if we were talking about the elements needed to be a successful Tour de France competitor and someone focused on tire color and chain tension as key elements, we'd question the nature of their experience in competitive bicycling, right?

Wrong.

Team Jumbo-Visma makes blue tire part of Tour de France peloton

Today at the team presentation of Le Grand Départ, Team Jumbo-Visma presented their bikes with a blue front tire for the Tour de France. The iconic blue…

www.teamvismaleaseabike.com

Tour de France Jersey Colors: Meaning and Symbolism Explained

Ever wondered what the yellow, green, polka dot and white jerseys mean at the Tour de France?

www.canyon.com

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/pro-bike/tour-de-france-tyre-tech

Simplex Tour de France Rear Derailleur Adjustment

It’s been quite a few years since I last posted about how to set up a Simplex Tour de France rear derailleur. These mechanisms were found on bikes dating from the late 1940’s to the ea…

restoringvintagebicycles.com

Wow, it's almost like there are multiple parts to nearly everything! And it's OK to focus on a less obvious part of a thing!

Also: last I checked, the Tour de France wasn't a fun social hobby.

 

[Faolyn]

Such things have been sprinkled throughout D&D since days of yore, trust me. Dragon fear aura, various undead, other things here and there. It was, admittedly, not some central mechanic of the game, but it has always existed.

I was talking specifically about lions causing fear.

 

[Lanefan]

One thing I keep getting struck by in this thread, is how many posters seem to think it is noteworthy if, in a RPGing experience, players are allowed to make their own action declarations without needing the GM's permission or being subject to GM vetoes. It makes me wonder what's going on out there in the wild!

It seems pretty common based on what I've seen here over the long run. The most common example is GMs vetoing (or not allowing in the first place) action declarations that are, or lead to, major CvC conflict. Another common example is GMs vetoing (or, again, not allowing) action declarations that paint a PC as Evil e.g. "I torture this guy for information" or "I take him as my slave".

 

[pemerton]

If you are "framing scenes" explicitly in regards to specific PC goals, that's what I would call meta agency. The player is (indirectly) shaping the setting through means outside of their PC's in fiction ability to do so.

What's the salient difference between *specific" goals, fun in general, relevance to a theme or value, etc?

If I include undead to give the paladin something to do; or (in 3E) to create a special challenge for the rogue, is that meta-agency?

Also, and with reference to this:

I recognize it too, even if I'm not interested in it. But if he "framed scenes" in the setting with the highest priority being specific character goals and drives, he was engaging in what I would call meta player-agency.

It's bizarre, to me, that you characterise a process of the GM doing things as the GM engaging in meta player agency. That seems bizarrely convoluted to me - how is the GM engaged in the players' agency?

 

[Faolyn]

How is that unique to BW, or Narrativist play in general? In PbtA the game will spell out its aims and describe how the GM decides what to frame into a scene. This is important!

In many other games out there that I've seen, If the GM doesn't specifically describe something, but the thing would logically be present and not hidden (accidentally or purposefully), and if the PC asks if that something is there, the GM will usually say "yes."

As I have repeated before, the wounded guy was put in a room to recover. Pemerton has never once objected to my use of the word "sick room," and the word recover seems to suggest that he was treated, so we can gather that he wasn't just dumped on the nearest flat surface and left to rot in his own juices. Thus: cups, bowls, jars, and jugs to hold water, herbs, and medicines, a chamber pot (which pemerton even mentioned), and so on. Thus, it is logical for the GM to say "yes, there's a cup right there."

I can also see the GM saying "but there's an axe-wielding assassin in the way, so if you want to get past the assassin and go straight for the cup, then roll Agility." (Or whatever the actual skill or stat used is.) Pemerton said this was a possibility if he hadn't instead called for a spot check.

I can even see the GM saying "you're not sure because there's an axe-wielding assassin who noticed you entered the room and is now moving towards you and raising their axe to strike" and then saying that if the PC wants to split his attention between the assassin and the room in general, then they can roll to spot something. Pemerton never said this was the case, or if he did, it was a thousand years ago and I don't remember any longer.

When the PC came in, the assassin had killed the guy but didn't seem to have trashed the room. Meaning that those cups, bowls, jars, and jugs haven't been strewn about or covered. If the room had been trashed, it would have been logical for the GM to say "The room has been trashed and everything is a big mess. Roll to see if you see a cup."

In some games, the PC can just say "I grab a cup off the side table" and ta-da, now a cup and a side table exist and always have, possibly even if the GM has a logical reason why there wouldn't be.

Some other games allow the player to make a roll or spend metacurrency to add a detail the the GM didn't include:

GM: <describes room>
Player: Is there a cup there?
GM: Do you want there to be a cup there?
Player: Yes, so I'll spend a point.

(Whether or not the appearance of a cup is worth spending a metacurrency is a completely different discussion.)

So: there's the difference.

 

[pemerton]

If I decide to run a game of BW, but limit Steel rolls to moments of Surprise, Fear, and Pain (as per the rules) and never, ever use them to see if a PC can perform an intended task, am I running BW right?

If I decide to remove the Steel rolls entirely, am I running BW right?

@Old Fezziwig answered your second question.

As to the first, I don't know why you keep insisting that cold-blooded murder is not the basis for a Steel test, when the rules state the opposite in multiple places (as I've referred to, in reply to you, in multiple posts upthread). I mean, you're relying on me for accounts of the Steel rules, but then acting as if you have epistemic access to them independent of me. It's weird.

 

[Faolyn]

@Old Fezziwig answered your second question.

As to the first, I don't know why you keep insisting that cold-blooded murder is not the basis for a Steel test, when the rules state the opposite in multiple places (as I've referred to, in reply to you, in multiple posts upthread). I mean, you're relying on me for accounts of the Steel rules, but then acting as if you have epistemic access to them independent of me. It's weird.

"The GM tests your Steel ability when you confront surprise, pain, fear, or wonderment."

Where's murder in there?

 

[pemerton]

I've jus
That's not what was originally said:

Just to be clear - are you saying that imaginary things (like the Elven Lady Galadriel, or the Easter Bunny, or the Millenium Falcon) have real causal effects in the world?

Obviously, Santa isn't actually going around delivering presents and Slender Man isn't really telling people to kill their schoolmates, but belief in their existence has real causal effects on the world. If the idea of a being who gives gifts to good little children had never been invented, then children wouldn't start behaving really well during a particular month of a year.

Beliefs aren't imaginary. They are actual mental states in the actual heads of actual people. Of course they have real effects. I'm posting this now, because I believe that there are people who might read it on these message boards.

My point was, and remains, that imaginary things don't have actual causal effects. So when it comes to playing RPGs, the world does not do anything. Rather, game participants do things. For instance, the GM makes a decision based on their ideas about the world they are imagining. Which is what @hawkeyefan, @AdbulAlhazred and I have been posting for quite a while now; but some other posters seem to deny it - or, at least, their posts imply that the fiction has its own consequences on play without anyone in the actual world having to actually do anything.

In their respective worlds Lady Galadhriel and the Millenium Falcon can be and are elements in cause-and-effect sequences.

But those worlds are imaginary, not real. Which means, as I said, that they have no actual causal influence.

Also, because they are authored, once the authorship comes to an end, so do the imaginary causal sequences. I gave an example upthread already: if I were to drop dead today, then it would remain unestablished whether the activities of the PCs in my Classic Traveller game brought ruin to the worlds they are currently exploring in, due to the Imperium taking steps to squash all evidence of psionic ability and psionic culture. Because that fictional situation - which is where the game is currently sitting - would never be resolved.

Actual causal processes, of course, unfold as they unfold without needing to be authored.

In the minds and imaginations of your children, however, Santa Claus is who caused those presents to appear

That's just a convoluted way of saying that my children have a false belief about what actually happened.

The children are immersed in the fiction and can there see cause-and-effect. You, here analogous to the GM who set up the fiction, know it's all fiction but you still maintain that fiction for your children's benefit and thus still have to track that causality sequence in your head in order to keep it consistent when telling it to the kids.

And this is to me very bizarre. I've never heard of a RPG game where the GM is actually setting out to keep it secret that the fiction is fictional. I mean, children compare notes with one another about whether Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, and sometimes can tell you how old they were when they worked it out. (The adults in my family were good at dressing up in red, hanging something white around their chin/neck to resemble a beard, stuffing a cushion down their shirt front, etc, so - based on some sightings I'd made waking up as a child on Christmas Eve - I had a firm conviction in the reality of Santa Claus that I abandoned embarrassingly late compared to some friends.)

But at the RPG table, all the participants know it's just made up. The GM's not fooling anyone in that respect.

One of our jobs as GMs is to make those causal sequences seem real

Yes? I think everyone knows this. My point is that this is the GM doing things, making decisions. So describing it as "the imaginary world responding to what the players have their PCs do" is metaphorical at best.

Which is my point, and @hawkeyefan's point, and @AbdulAlhazred's point. The GM can't eschew responsibility for their contributions to the game by trying to offload that responsibility to "the world" - a thing that they are authoring and making decisions about. And every time something happens in "the world" that is the GM making a decision and impressing their vision upon the shared fiction.