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

[pemerton]

Note that pemerton also said a game in which the players had one choice in where to go, and if they didn't go in that direction the game would literally be over (the only other option was to go home and do nothing), was not railroading.

Once again you attribute to me things that I didn't say.

What I actually said was that agreeing to play a dungeon crawl, where - inherent to the nature of the game - the action starts at the entrance to the dungeon - is not railroading.

As I posted upthread to @Maxperson, there seems to be a lot of "but this one goes to 11" going on in this thread.

All the settings are imaginary. It doesn't increase the scope of my ability to make decisions, as a player, simply to have the setting involve vast plains and oceans rather than narrow corridors and poky rooms. The DL modules involve expansive vistas, and yet are railroads. Robin Laws's HeroWars scenario Demon of the Red Grove involves just that - a demon in a grove of fruit trees, and the owner of said grove - and yet isn't a railroad at all.

What creates scope for meaningful choice is not the the imagined size of the fiction, but the actual processes and dynamics of play. And if I want to play a game in which my PC can (say) travel the oceans blue rather than wander around the ruins of Castle Greyhawk, I can just talk to the GM about that and settle on playing a different game. That's not something that needs to be resolved by making moves within the game. (Similarly: dealing a hand of cards, or setting up the chess board, is preparatory to play; it's not the game itself.)

 

[robertsconley]

Note that pemerton also said a game in which the players had one choice in where to go, and if they didn't go in that direction the game would literally be over (the only other option was to go home and do nothing), was not railroading.

So I'm not entirely sure that pemerton is using the term railroading in a way like any anyone else here is.

At one point up thread I asked @pemerton whether my living world campaign was a railroad (his definition), at first he evaded the question, and then said he didn't have enough information.
So

 

[AlViking]

I'm not sure what action you're talking about, though.

I mean, here is a rough presentation of the sequence of events in play

I, the player, declare an action - "I - Aedhros - murder the innkeeper".​

​

The GM says, "Hang on - do you have the Steel for that?" and calls for a Steel test. Given that something is definitely at stake for this PC, that is an appropriate call for a test.​

​

I roll the dice - in the fiction, Aedhros is screwing up his fortitude - and fail - Aedhros hesitates.​

I don't see how this is any different in its structure from something like this in D&D:

I, the player, declare an action - "I charge the dragon".​

​

The GM says, "Hang on, it gets a tail sweep reaction if someone closes with it - what's your AC? <rolls dice> It hits you with its tail sweep for <however many> hp of damage, and knocks you prone in you fail a DEX save vs <this DC>."​

​

I roll the dice - in the fiction, my PC, having been struck by the dragon's tail, is trying to keep his balance - and fail. So my PC is knocked prone.​

Do you also describe this sort of routine stuff in D&D combat as "system driven"?

One is internal to the character and is telling the person of the character that they do not have authorial control over their character, the other is a dragon that the DM has authorial control over. In D&D the resulting attack from the dragon and the impact on the character's physical state is under the authorial control of the people that wrote rules.

 

[pemerton]

No, it's not at stake because they are in a location where blood-catching vessels will be readily available and visible.

<snip>

What's actually at stake is the PC's ability to get the blood to the naga, not find a cup.

This is why I say that you do not seem to understand how BW works.

You are talking about how likely something is based on some vision of the fiction. That is not what determines whether or not the dice are rolled in BW.

What determines whether dice are rolled is if (i) a player says that their PC does something, and (ii) the success or failure of that thing would matter to some player-determined priority for that PC.

Here, the player said that his PC does something - ie look for a vessel to catch the blood - and whether or not he finds one matters to whether or not he can catch the blood (because without a vessel, he can't catch the blood). It's that simple.

You may or may not like the rules - that's your prerogative - but it is a bit frustrating to have you continue to tell me that I applied them incorrectly. I have quite a bit of experience reading, playing and GMing this system. Whereas you seem to have none. So I don't really grasp your confidence in asserting how it is meant to work.

[/I]And if the PC knew ahead of time he'd be called upon to gather blood, then there should be no reason he wouldn't prepare himself for the task ahead of time unless the game puts artificial constraints on PC actions in order to drive up drama, in which case allow me to link to the TV Tropes page "Idiot Ball."

And that's something I consider to be a bad rule for what I assume is a serious or semi--serious game.

There are no "artificial constraints". But the PC was not carrying any vessels. He was planning to take the mage to the Naga intact - hence why he was hoping to get to the tower before the assassin did.

And there was no apparent opposition that was keeping the PC from catching the blood--there was an assassin, but no mention of the assassin attacking the PC, at least none that I can remember.

The assassin was in hand-to-hand combat with another PC. But there was something keeping the PC from catching the blood, namely, his lack of a vessel! That's why he looked around for one.

The PC isn't looking for a specific vessel or type of vessel (e.g., the naga didn't say it must be presented to it in a silver wineglass or a blessed cup take from the local church). The PC isn't looking for a vessel that has been hidden away, deliberately or accidentally. They're looking for any type of vessel that can hold liquid in a sick room that should logically have cups, bowls, jars, dishes, pots, and other such items.

The "logic" you refer to is why the obstacle is low rather than high.

Heck, he could have yanked off one of the decapitated NPC's shoes and had the blood drain into that.

Had he declared that action, it would have been resolved as an Agility test rather than a Perception test.

Which means that, from everything you have said, there was no actual in-game or character-driven pressure on the PC to obtain a cup, nor was there a time crunch. Any pressure in the scene was from GM fiat.

BW does not use a concept of "pressure" in order to determine if a test is required. I'm aware that some RPGs do use that notion. BW doesn't, though. It uses the concepts of "stakes" and "conflicts". The rulebook - in the bit that you can read for free - even includes the following statement (p 72):

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.​

The character doesn't have a vessel, and wants one. I mean, really wants one - his Belief is on the line. Roll the dice!

EDIT:
It occurs to me that you are assuming that a failed test means a failed task. But it needn't. It means failed intent.

Let's suppose that the roll was 4 dice against Ob 1, so a 1 in 16 chance of failure. If the test fails, what is the correct narration?

Given that the PC is a shaman who summons spirits, and one of his domains for summoning is Sickbeds, and he has a Belief that To catch a thing, one must set the right bait, a possible narration of failure would be that he sees a vessel, but it is broken, having been knocked to the floor in the fighting that's taken place in the room. Bait him into trying to summon spirits to mend the vessel!

 

[pemerton]

At one point up thread I asked @pemerton whether my living world campaign was a railroad (his definition), at first he evaded the question, and then said he didn't have enough information.
So

I don't know why you think it's so outrageous to refrain from forming an opinion in the absence of information! To me, that's a pretty standard approach to take.

 

[zakael19]

I don't know why you think it's so outrageous to refrain from forming an opinion in the absence of information! To me, that's a pretty standard approach to take.

This is the internet, all we’re supposed to do is have strong opinions despite a lack of understanding or information! See you know, the endless back and forth about DW play you’re engaged in.

 

[Lanefan]

OK. And what does that have to do with what @Campbell, @hawkeyefan and I are talking about?

The RPGs that I've discussed in this thread are Burning Wheel, Torchbearer and D&D (AD&D and 4e). None of them rely upon this technique.

So where is the "meta" in this? The player signals something about their PC - a relationship, a hope, a fear, a value. That's not meta - that's just making decisions as one's PC, about what one hopes and fears and values.

The meta is that when the player defines those things about their character they are doing so with the up-front expectation that the GM will incorporate those things into the game, because that's what the rules say. The rules give the player that meta-agency.

If my character's goal-belief-equivalent is "I will avenge the death of my brother even if it costs me my life" and the GM is expected to work that in somehow then I-as-player have meta-directed play in quite a different direction than if my goal is "I will ascend the throne of Althasia as king before my 35th birthday".

For me, it's better if the DM just plays the world as it is without regard to what characters we have or what their goals are, and let us as players work our own goals in to play as best we can (or can't, there's no guarantee our goals are achievable or even start-able e.g. if I'm a simple baker's assistant with some thieving skills then even though I declare my goal is to ascend the throne of Althasia my odds of ever getting anywhere near that throne are, realistically, zero).

And then the GM does stuff - that is not the player doing anything!

So where is the "meta-agency" on the part of the player?

Answered just above.

The other thing worth noting is that all this stuff about goals-beliefs-etc. being central to play seems to assume the character will survive long enough for any of it to become relevant, which is by no means guaranteed in the games I'm used to.

 

[pemerton]

The meta is that when the player defines those things about their character they are doing so with the up-front expectation that the GM will incorporate those things into the game, because that's what the rules say. The rules give the player that meta-agency.

What is it "meta" in relation to? How is playing the game, including building my character, "meta"? And how is the GM following the rules "meta"?

The other thing worth noting is that all this stuff about goals-beliefs-etc. being central to play seems to assume the character will survive long enough for any of it to become relevant, which is by no means guaranteed in the games I'm used to.

Every scene is to be framed having reference to player-determined priorities for their PCs. So as long as you actually get to play your PC, there won't be an issue.

 

[Lanefan]

So no, you must do what your Duel of Wits action is to get the benefit. If you're driving home a point, you as your character drive home your point. If you're deflecting an argument, you deflect. Etc. IT's the polar opposite of classic "say words until the GM feels like you've gotten somewhere" because each thing your character says is tied directly to a mechanical outcome within a larger conflict (do I achieve my goal before my opponent overcomes me?). Besides, most D&D play in a ruleset that has skills is functionally exactly the same just with one roll, unopposed, and you see if all your pretty words mean anything (otherwise the GM is just fiating an outcome).

The question still remains, though: does - or can - what you say in-character (and thus, one assumes, also say at the table) have any mechanical influence on the subsequent dice rolls, as in provide a bonus or penalty or even maybe obviate the roll entirely?

It may not be for you, clearly that level of mechanization doesnt work for everybody, but your characterization here is deeply unkind.

I don't like social mechanics in RPGs (including D&D) as IMO they defeat just about the entire purpose of roleplaying, and thus I don't see the post you're replying to as being unkind at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What is it "meta" in relation to? How is playing the game, including building my character, "meta"? And how is the GM following the rules "meta"?

Every scene is to be framed having reference to player-determined priorities for their PCs. So as long as you actually get to play your PC, there won't be an issue.

It is meta in the sense that it is not from the PCs point of view, but rather initiated by the GM at the Player's command before the game begins.