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

[TwoSix]

I have played OSE and Moldvay I like. But never heard of this one before

To be very clear, it's not a game. It's a statement of play principles.

 

[Faolyn]

To me, if the possible consequences range from an agent might try and poison you in a park through a van will pull up and discharge a dozen agents trying to kidnap you to a coup will occur in your homeland, and a battalion of soldiers come after you, then I don't really know what the consequences are.

I think that the range of consequences would be likely understood by the players and would keep to within a reasonable limitation based on the scale of taken actions, unless the game or GM are particularly punishing. And the players would likely know that unless they're going into the game blind or have never played under that GM before.

If you're trying to hack into the Enemy's computers, it makes sense that if you roll badly (or they roll well), they will find you and send someone after you. It's also reasonable to assume (again, assuming that neither the game nor GM are out to get you) that you'll at least have a chance to defeat, evade, or redirect the goons--whatever is most appropriate for your characters.

However, the consequences don't have to be 100% on the GM's shoulders, regardless of the game. The GM can say to the players "You're pretty sure that they've pinpointed your location" and either ask them outright what they think the Enemy is going to do or listen to the PCs' conjectures and use that as a guide for what the consequences should be.

For example, in the D&D game I've mentioned, my character and another (the group's cleric) were looking for a Clue in a ruined hovel that was amongst several other practically ruined hovels in the slummiest of the town's slums. I was actually pretty angry (in character) because previously we'd been dealing with nobility and the contrast was upsetting. We found a locked box. I'm playing a rogue. This was ages ago (the game's been played on and off for multiple years now), so I can't remember if I neglected to check for traps on the box entirely before I picked the lock, or if I checked for traps and "didn't find any," but yeah, whichever one it is, I do remember that I rolled a 1. With no Int bonus or skill in Investigation. So of course there was an explosive trap that I only barely survived (thank goodness for fire resistance!) that pretty much leveled the hovel.

Rag-clad, poverty-stricken peasants came a-runnin', scared, angry, and wanting to find out what happened. I decided that while my rogue had no Int modifier to help her search for traps, she did have a pretty high Charisma and expertise in Persuasion, so I claimed that that it was the fault of the wizards in the tower that was right there. Clearly they were experimenting and didn't care that their experiments were hurting the people of this part of town (we had had some reasons to suspect that the wizards were doing something a bit fishy anyway, so I had no problem pinning the blame on them). DM wanted me to role Persuasion.

Nat 20.

DM wanted to know what result I was looking for. I wanted for these poor people to be really angry at the rich wizards who were living in luxury and doing suspicious things.

Cue the start of a riot that spread across the entire city. (Note that a single nat 20 didn't cause the entire riot--I did help to fan the flames a bit with some more Persuasion/Deception rolls.) The DM thought this was awesome, although IIRC the cleric was pissed and pulled me along back to our inn by my ear. (Or maybe that was another time my character did shenanigans. She's a shenaniganner.)

 

[pemerton]

I think that the range of consequences would be likely understood by the players and would keep to within a reasonable limitation based on the scale of taken actions, unless the game or GM are particularly punishing. And the players would likely know that unless they're going into the game blind or have never played under that GM before.

I'm talking about an actual play experience that happened with an experienced GM and experienced players, who had been playing together for years.

I've stated what the problem was:

I, as GM, had to decide how much effort the faction devoted to thwarting the PCs, and how seriously the resources dedicated to that effort were deployed. The rules of the game gave me measures for things like how many and how potent spells can a NPC cast, but nothing more. So all the rest was simply up to me to decide, with the upshot of my decision being the full gamut from the PCs experience little threat to the PCs are utterly hosed.

RM has no inherent devices for handling or mitigating this, because it's mechanics are basically more elaborate and simulationist versions of classic D&D mechanics (with a few exceptions - eg it has rudimentary but still workable social mechanics); but it assumes a completely different framing context from the very artificial environment of the classic D&D dungeon (which constrains and channels possible threats so the PCs don't get automatically hosed by the forces arrayed against them).

This experience is one reason why I prefer systems that - like classic D&D - provide a framework for the introduction and prosecution of adversity, but - unlike classic D&D - have a framework that will work in the more verisimilitudinous/naturalistic contexts that I prefer.

The post I've quoted goes on to provide an illustration of that sort of alternative framework.

 

[Faolyn]

As the BW rulebook says (p 72), "There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome." If that is what one is looking for - RPGing without social agreement between the participants for the resolution of conflict, then a system is needed. Because the sort of RPGing you are talking about is precisely the social agreement that BW eschews.

Wait, what? The game doesn't allow the players to roleplay out a situation on their own? They have to roll the dice and adjust their behaviors to what the dice say? Am I understanding that correctly? I think I am, because I googled it and found more questions about it on the BW forum that seem to say yes, BW constrains your character's behavior, but I want to make sure.

I can't address anything else in your comment until I get clarification on this. Because if this is the case, (a) I cannot imagine why you think that "Burning Wheel supports player-driven RPGing" when no, it doesn't--even if it only takes over during duels of wits or at times like that, the game is very much not letting the player drive even their own characters; and (b) this game just moved from "not something I'd want to run but I'd play it" to "game I will not touch with an 11-foot pole."

 

[Maxperson]

Here's and example of the sort of thing I mean: the players want information to help make an informed decision, and in order to do that all this other play has to happen first, which is not about them exercising control over the fiction but just about doing whatever has to be done to prompt the GM to provide the information

It absolutely is them exercising control over the fiction. I didn't send them to the sage or library. I didn't come up with the goal. The DM as you note in your response there is completely reactionary to the player driven play.

It's not YOUR player driven play, but it IS player driven play. There are multiple ways to drive somewhere and I'd appreciate it if you don't misrepresent my playstyle. I try very hard not to misrepresent yours.

 

[pemerton]

It absolutely is them exercising control over the fiction. I didn't send them to the sage or library. I didn't come up with the goal. The DM as you note in your response there is completely reactionary to the player driven play.

The players are declaring actions. That's all you're describing here: they describe their PCs doing something for a reason.

The GM's reaction is telling the players what happens next. Which is not the totality of the fiction, but a huge chunk of it. Until I know what principles, heuristic etc are governing that, I know basically nothing about the control the players have exercised.

I mean, suppose the sage says "I will answer your question if you do XYZ", where XYZ is something or other that the GM has made up. How is that player driven?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

(a) I cannot imagine why you think that "Burning Wheel supports player-driven RPGing" when no, it doesn't--even if it only takes over during duels of wits or at times like that, the game is very much not letting the player drive even their own characters;

The presence of constraints may not be (well, clearly is not) to taste, but that doesn't mean it doesn't support player-driven RPGing. Through BITs, players get to establish priorities for play, and the intent/task structure allows for players to have a great deal of control over what success looks like for their little dudes (successes are sacrosanct). And the game never tells the players what their character thinks. Loss in a Duel of Wits doesn't mean that a character's mind has been changed, only that they lost an argument and words alone aren't going to be sufficient to get what they want. They'll have to try something else that's in line with the new situation. Similarly, just because Aedhros hesitates before he can commit a murder in cold blood, it doesn't mean that his player isn't in control of Aedhros; it just means that something new's been revealed about Aedhros and the player and the GM now have something new to grapple with (Is Aedhros actually capable of murder? Will he try again?).

 

[SableWyvern]

It seems pretty obvious to me that there are people in this conversation who believe it is literally impossible for a GM to provide players with sufficient information and to rule consistently enough for players to be able to make informed (edit: or meaningful) decisions and rely on the outcomes in a game where the GM has ultimately authority over elements of the world that are not the PCs. Anyone feeling like that is obviously going to oppose any system of play that provides GMs with that authority and relies on them to provide information and rule consistently.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really leave any room for dialogue when the other side finds play most enjoyable when GMs do have that authority and the players are relying on them to do that (supposedly impossible) thing, providing sufficient information and being implicitly trusted to rule consistently.

 

[Maxperson]

The players are declaring actions. That's all you're describing here: they describe their PCs doing something for a reason.

Yes, and that reason is to drive play. Their actions are quite literally determining where the fiction is going. I'm not initiating anything after the very first scene. It's all reaction after that.

 

[Hussar]

as opposed to the players only seeking out a dragon lair and then finding it once they have leveled up enough when the players control the fiction? That does not appear to be a big difference…

Sorry, I'm not following.

It's not like the players can declare that there is a red dragon a point X. The DM does that. The DM tells the players, there is a Red Dragon here. Because of the level system, if the players are insufficient level, they cannot go there (or, well, they can but very, very likely won't). Which means that the players go off and do other stuff, only returning to this place once they have sufficient firepower. How is this not the DM more or less driving the campaign? I plonk down numerous locations. Some of them will be too dangerous for the characters. Some of them will be more or less plausible for the players to handle. So, I've now carved out a pretty clear path of "don't go here (yet)" and "here is a good place to go for interesting stuff to happen". The path of the campaign is going to follow those road signs pretty predictably.

My whole point for all of this is the argument that "sandbox allows so much freedom" is that this "so much player freedom" isn't quite as much as people want to claim. The truth is, the difference between a sandbox campaign and pretty much any other campaign isn't anywhere near as big as people like to believe. The amount of freedom for the players is going to depend so much on the DM that it's not really possible to say that sandbox campaigns allow maximum player choice.