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

[Lanefan]

All let it ride does is elide place and time. So instead of a roll to sneak past these guards, then another roll to sneak past these other guards if you succeed you are outside the cell of the damsel you intend to rescue or in the bedchambers of your traitorous brother, ready to confront him. There is no fiction that can happen in the intervening because we go right to the intent being realized.

This is one of my major issues with systems like that: the skipping over of details and thus that "intervening fiction". (same issue I have with a lot of 4e's skill challenges)

Yes my overall intent might be to get to the captured damsel but being able to get past several groups of guards and maybe a magical alarm all with one good roll really sucks the tension out of it. If it's that well guarded, sneaking into that place (or trying to) should be an entire session's play in itself, with failure possible at every step of the way.

 

[robertsconley]

First
robertsconley said:
The distinction I make between character agency and meta-agency is not about players stepping outside the fiction to co-author the story. It is about how different systems resolve action declarations. In a Living World campaign, agency comes from what the character does in a consistent world. The outcome is shaped by the world’s logic. In Burning Wheel, the player may be acting as the character, but the system ensures that what the character wants becomes the reality of the setting. The player is not just navigating the world. The system gives their intent structural weight and enforces it on the fiction. That is meta-agency. The player does not have to speak out-of-character to be exerting control beyond the character's point of view.

pemerton said:
There is no world that exercise causal potency. Where you say the world, you are actually talking about the GM making a decision, using whatever heuristics and processes they think will ensure "consistency".

In Burning Wheel, the GM uses different processes - not ones that foreground their ideas about "world consistency", but ones that respond to player-determined priorities for their PCs.

The idea that one is more "meta" than the other has no foundation that I can see - they are simply different GMing principles.

And it is simply not true that 'what the character wants becomes the reality of the setting". Unless you mean nothing more than the truism that sometimes characters succeed at what they attept. I mean, even in D&D sometimes players succeed, and then things they want become the reality of the setting (eg the Orc is dead; the door is open; the trap is disarmed; etc).

(snip)
Second
robertsconley said:
You also say stakes are not negotiated in Burning Wheel. But the moment a player declares an intent, that becomes the stake. If the roll succeeds, the GM is required to make that intent happen. That is not the same as discovering the stakes through play. That is the player, using the system, to set the stakes in advance. The GM cannot override it once the roll is made. The player’s intent does not just express what the character is doing. It directs what the fiction must now deliver. That is a structural feature of the system, and it is not present in Living World play.

pemerton said:
Just to be clear - are you saying that in Living World RPGing the GM can override the results of a player's roll? So eg the player succeeds in the roll to hit and kill the Orc, but the GM can just decide that the Orc remains alive. If so, what is the point of the player rolling the dice?


(snip)
Third
robertsconley said:
Finally, throughout this exchange you have dismissed my use of meta-agency as false, while repeatedly describing situations where it clearly applies. You deny the term, but your own examples depend on system structures that elevate player input beyond the character's point of view or what the character is capable of in the setting.
Because it's not "meta". There is nothing "meta" about just playing the game and following the rules.

pemerton said:
I mean, it's notorious that Gygax included the Fraz-Urb'luu room in Castle Greyhawk because he thought it would be fun and interesting. Does that mean that the players were exercising "meta-agency"?

What I am doing is isolating the parts of your response that add something new or ask a direct question, and respond clearly to those points.

First, the claim that “there is no world that exercises causal potency.” That’s not a small clarification. That’s a complete rejection of the idea that a fictional world can have internal logic or continuity separate from the referee’s decision-making. That’s also the central difference between how Burning Wheel handles agency and how Living World play does. In my framework, the world is treated as a consistent space. Outcomes are shaped by how player actions interact with that world. In your framing, the world is entirely downstream from GM or system procedure. That confirms the core of what I’ve been saying about the difference between character and meta-agency. In Burning Wheel, the system structurally elevates player intent; in Living World, the structure is the world itself.

Second, the question about whether a Living World referee can override a successful roll. The answer is no. A successful roll is honored, but what the roll resolves is different. In Living World play, the roll resolves an attempted action in a consistent context. In Burning Wheel, the roll resolves a declared outcome. Those are two different models.

Third, your question about whether Gygax putting a fun room in a dungeon means the players are exercising meta-agency. No, that is about referee authorship. Meta-agency, as I’m using it, refers to player influence on the structure of the fiction through rules that enforce specific narrative outcomes. It happens when the player, through system tools, causes the fiction to shift in a way the character could not control directly.

That covers the actual points that moved the discussion forward. I’ll address the rest separately.

 

[Lanefan]

I've answered this question multiple times in this thread, in replies multiple posters. I haven't gone back to check if I've answered it in a reply to you, but I expect that I have.

@zakael19 has also answered, in replies to you.

Here is the relevant rule, from p 103 of the Revised rulebook:

When scripting these maneuvers, players must speak their parts. Spitting out moves in a robotic fashion is not a viable use of these mechanics. The arguments must be made. Of course, no one expects us all to be eloquent, so just the main thrust or a simple retort usually suffices (but a little embellishment is nice).​

​

Keep it simple and to the point. Say what you need to in order to roll the dice. A multipoint statement should be broken down into multiple actions across the exchange.​

What is said correlates to what sort of action is rolled. And also - as I've posted upthread - determines the content of any compromise.

I don't understand why this is being treated as some sort of mystery!

It's a mystery because nothing there says how or if what is spoken can mechanically influence the die-roll odds.

 

[Lanefan]

Steel
Steel is an attribute that represents the character’s nerves. It is tested when the character is startled or shocked. The results of the test then tell us whether the character flinches, or whether he steels his nerves and carries on.

When a Steel test is failed, the player loses control of the character momentarily—just as the character loses control of his faculties. The player chooses how the character loses it, but after that the character is out of action for a few in-game seconds as he freaks out. A GM can call for a Steel test under four conditions: When the character is confronted with surprise, fear, pain or wonderment.

Two things of interest here:

1. There's nothing there saying another player can call for a Steel test, only the GM can.
2. If in my game I had to do this every time a character was surprised, frightened, hurt, or awed they'd be rolling 100 Steel checks per session!

 

[robertsconley]

(snip)
robertsconley said:
You say all you do is play Thurgon, but that overlooks what the rules are doing behind the scenes.

permerton said:
How am I possibly overlooking these things, when in the post that you are replying to I say "The rest is taken care of by the GM following and applying the rules of the game." Did you not read that sentence before replying?


robertsconley said:
Beliefs, Intent and Task, Let It Ride, and Say Yes or Roll are not passive tools. They are mechanisms that guarantee the fiction will shape itself around the character’s goals. This is not just acting as the character. The system makes sure those actions carry extra narrative authority. That is what I mean by meta-agency.

permerton said:
I don't know what you mean by an "active tool" (cf "passive tool"). But all those rules govern the GM. So now you are saying that it is "meta-agency" that the GM follows the rules. Which, as I already posted, is bizarre.

(snip)


robertsconley said:
When you bring up Blackmoor

permerton said:
You brought up Blackmoor, not me. I brought up Gygax on Successful Adventures.


robertsconley said:
you are agreeing with the core of my argument. Agency can come from a consistent world and shared expectations, not just from rules that constrain the GM. But instead of acknowledging this, you cast doubt on whether my Living World play works the same way. That move avoids the issue. Either you believe informal structures can support agency, or you do not.

pemerton said:
I'm sorry, you don't get to tell me what I believe, and to affirm simplistic dichotomies and insist that I must do the same.

I have posted extensively, in this and other threads, about my understanding of classic dungeon play. I have expressed my general doubts about the possibility of extending this to "living world" play, with a particular focus on the players' ability to know what the outcomes of their declared actions will be. Given that, just above, you seem to have said that you don't regard players' successes on rolls as having any binding significance for the GM, I retain those doubts.

(snip)
robertsconley said:
When this happens once or twice, it is a misunderstanding. When it happens over and over, it raises questions about whether you are engaging seriously with what I am saying or just refusing to let go of your framing.

permerton said:
I'm not misunderstanding. I just think you're wrong. You seem to think it's the pinnacle of player agency to prompt the GM to make a decision. I don't agree.

The rest of your reply does not engage with what I actually said. It mostly rephrases my position into something easier to dismiss and avoids addressing the structure of the argument.

You corrected me on who brought up Blackmoor, as if that changes the fact that you used early dungeon play as an example to support your view. That’s not a serious response to the argument.

You accused me of telling you what you believe when I pointed out that your examples support the idea that agency can come from consistent world logic. That is a basic inference, not a personal attack.

You tried to make my use of meta-agency sound like nonsense by bringing up a Gygax dungeon room. That was a distraction. I’m not talking about why referees build things. I’m talking about how systems give players tools to affect outcomes beyond what the character alone could achieve.

And finally, you ignored everything I’ve said about how intent interacts with the world and reduced it to “you think the pinnacle of agency is prompting the GM.” That’s a strawman.

If someone keeps shifting the conversation like this, it is fair to ask whether they are trying to win a debate or actually understand the point. This kind of pattern makes it hard to take the disagreement seriously, because it keeps slipping away from the terms originally presented.

 

[AlViking]

It's a mystery because nothing there says how or if what is spoken can mechanically influence the die-roll odds.

Someone (sorry, forgot who) posted a link to the duel of wits sheet to explain the process a bit. I see the same thing that I saw in 4e's skill challenges, that what I actually say doesn't really matter. You have different options you can use but they are still just options that are resolved with the roll of the dice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

First, the claim that “there is no world that exercises causal potency.” That’s not a small clarification. That’s a complete rejection of the idea that a fictional world can have internal logic or continuity separate from the referee’s decision-making. That’s also the central difference between how Burning Wheel handles agency and how Living World play does. In my framework, the world is treated as a consistent space. Outcomes are shaped by how player actions interact with that world. In your framing, the world is entirely downstream from GM or system procedure. That confirms the core of what I’ve been saying about the difference between character and meta-agency. In Burning Wheel, the system structurally elevates player intent; in Living World, the structure is the world itself.

Yeah, personally I am not too caught up in how BW or other systems handle this stuff (if they are consistent internally, fair enough, if not, because of some other priority, fair enough as well). But the idea that a world can't have causal potency I think just seems very uncharitable to me. Anyone who has built a world and run a living world, understands this is something you can model, and it does start to take a life on its own. Now people can reduce that to basic elements to try to demystify it or paint it in a lesser light (for example just saying 'the GM just decides things') but that really misses not only what is happening in the GM's mind, but what happened in interaction between player and GM and the pieces 'on the board'. I get, this might not resonate with some people, they might find it underwhelming in practice. That is totally fine. Where I get irritated is when people dismiss it, or accuse of us of just using poetic language.

Second, the question about whether a Living World referee can override a successful roll. The answer is no. A successful roll is honored, but what the roll resolves is different. In Living World play, the roll resolves an attempted action in a consistent context. In Burning Wheel, the roll resolves a declared outcome. Those are two different models.

This is something that definitely keeps getting raised as a straw man. Rulings over rules doesn't mean no rules or that die rolls aren't honored. I think the only time a GM might step in on a die roll is if, for some reason, the roll was just inexplicably out of sync with everything that should be happening. I don't think I have even actually seen this in practice, but if I had it was probably due to a GM applying a rule that shouldn't have been applied to a given situation or a problem the system itself around an edge case. But most living worlds I've been in have a very 'let the dice fall where they may' attitude. And usually once a rule or procedure is invoked, that is how things are going to be dealt with.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah. There will be times when they do initiate things, but initiating things part time isn't sandbox play. In sandbox play the DM is reactive to the players pretty much all the time. If I'm frequently having to initiate things, the game has shifted away from sandbox play into play that's more linear in nature.

I 'liked' this post but don't agree the shift is from sandbox to linear. It shifts from player-driven to DM-driven but if you-as-DM are initiating things by dropping a bunch of hooks down and letting them choose, to me that's still sandbox enough for rock'n'roll.

Linear is when you only drop one hook.

 

[Lanefan]

The GM deciding to give you a benny because of your good thespianism isn't agency.

Perhaps not, but if it leads to better thespianism I'm all for it.

 

[Faolyn]

You drive home the point by using the resolution mechanic of the game, countered by your opponent's rejoinder they "scripted." Each "Weapon of Wit" is tied to one or more possible tests/skills, representing the sorts of rhetorical tools at hand - and informing the dice pool (and various other mechanics I'm not super familiar with around character skill advancement and stuff). There's no "judgement call," there's a set Obstacle or Vs (directly versus your opponent's pool). You can also like, both come away from an argument damaged even if one person "won" the pass, which I think is super cool.

I think the reason you may be feeling like the "question gets sidestepped" is because this is a very complex multi-stage resolution mechanic that is making every phrase you say have a mechanical meaning. It's not like "say a line and roll Persuasion." Here's a page walking through the structure of a Duel of Wits from some iteration of BW if you want to look it over yourself.

Well. That page just sucks all the fun out of roleplaying.

The GM deciding to give you a benny because of your good thespianism isn't agency.

In a D&D game (and just about every other RPG out there), you don't use social skills on PCs. You can roll and say "your character finds their argument very persuasive," (or very lackluster, or whatever) but you can't say "your PC is convinced." Unless there's magic involved, which means that it isn't a social skill but a magical attack.