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

[Faolyn]

Correct.

As the rules state quite clearly, the GM says "yes" when nothing is at stake. When a player's PC has the Belief I will bring Joachim's blood to my master, and when that PC is faced with the prospect of Joachim's blood flowing away across the floor, and therefore declares "I look for a vessel to catch the blood", there is something at stake. To make it crystal clear - what is at stake is whether the blood can be caught. So the dice have to be rolled.

Yes, I believe you. This is why I also keep saying that, to me, it seems that you are not understanding how scene framing and action resolution work in Burning Wheel. Because if you did, you would recognise how the example that I've provided illustrates the rules for scene-framing found on p 11, for when the dice must be rolled found on pp 11 and 72, for how to establish intent and task found on pp 24-25, and for what follows from success found on pp 30 and 32.

Well, I know basically three broad categories of rules to govern when the dice need to be rolled.

One is "if you do it, you do it". Apocalypse World uses this. I also think this is the best way of playing Classic Traveller; although the rulebooks from 1977 aren't completely clear on the issue, they tend to incline this way. This is also the standard way of resolving D&D combat.

Another is "say 'yes' if nothing is at stake, or otherwise roll the dice". BW uses this. So does Dogs in the Vineyard (which is where BW gets it from). Prince Valiant is not quite as clear, but I think this generally works best for Prince Valiant also. Marvel Heroic RP, and 4e D&D outside of combat, are not completely clear but also I think work best this way. Different games may use different heuristics to work out when something is at stake. I've explained the BW one in a fair bit of detail in multiple posts in this thread.

A third is the GM decides when a roll is called for. Again, there can be different heuristics for making that decision. Most of classic D&D non-combat works like this - Moldvay Basic sets out some good heuristics for this in ch 8 of the rulebook. 5e D&D also works like this, but I'm not sure if the heuristics are as clear as the Moldvay Basic ones.

I don't think your claim about "most" RPGs is empirically grounded, unless you are relying on the fact that most actual events of playing a RPG use some non-4e version of D&D.

As I believe I posted already, Jobe and Tru-leigh were at their accommodations (from memory, a tavern or similar establishment) and had drugged the assassin Halika. They then travelled through the catacombs beneath the city to Jabal's tower. But they got lost on the way, meaning that Halika awakened from her stupor, and - realising what had happened - set off at speed to the tower, to get there before Jobe and Tru-leigh could take Joachim. And she did, thus finding herself able to decapitate Joachim.

Jobe and Tru-leigh had left their accommodations to sneak into Jabal's tower. They were not decked out for a camping trip. I don't recall what either was carrying, other than their clothes, and in Tru-leigh's case probably his snakes.

From pp 17 and 21-22 of Hub and Spokes:

Let’s take a look at what comprises a character in this system: He has stats, attributes and skills; Beliefs, Instincts and traits; Resources, relationships, reputations, affiliations and Circles; and of course, he’s got his gear and stuff that he totes around with him.​

​

All of these elements affect how the character is played, and thus how the game is shaped by the character’s actions. . . .​

​

No fantasy roleplaying game would be complete without stuff: Swords, armor, books, spells, clothes, shoes, lanterns, etc. All of the bits and pieces to make you feel right. In this game, gear augments an ability or reduces (or increases) a penalty. Swords augment your Power stat when your character is trying to kill someone. Lanterns reduce penalties for Perception tests in darkness. Clothes keep those social skill test obstacles down.​

​

Gear is initially acquired in character burning. In play, gear is purchased via a Resources test or even just granted by the GM during appropriate scenes: a knight is granted a new sword and suit of armor by his liege, or a magic helmet is found in the burial mound of a long-dead god, for example.​

​

Mostly though, gear is window dressing that adds detail to your world.​

I guess I have assumes that posters who are as curious as you appear to be about a RPG will have downloaded the free rules and had a look through them.

I have also downloaded the free rules and had a look through them. Which is why I've been confused as to your interpretation of them. (Also, the free rules don't actually have all the rules--there's nothing in them about the duel of wits, for instance.)

"You have to do this." "The GM can't do that." "The game says this." "The game doesn't allow for that." All these things you're saying have been contradicted by the actual rules. There's nothing at stake when it comes to finding a cup except that you, the GM (or whoever was GMing that day) decided there was, because of Reasons that wouldn't fly in any other game. There's nothing that says that a player must roll to see if they've got the guts to kill someone, except that the GM decided they should in order to further their own character's desires.

I'm just going to say this: You are not good at providing information. You have a game where one player "puts on a GM hat" and decides that another player must make a Steel check. I ask if this is a thing any player can do; I ask if this is a GMPC; I ask what a GM can actually do in this game; I ask a dozen questions about this. You talk around the subject, quote rules that don't actually have anything to do with anything, nitpick character names I've forgotten, talk about Gygax-era AD&D, or do anything else in your power to avoid actually explaining what was going on, rules-wise, in plain language. It took nearly two weeks for you to finally explain that this example was from an unusual two-player game where both players were also acting as GMs, but that's not how BW normally works.

You have a game where two players had an intimate, weighty discussion about mending armor which somehow makes BW better than D&D. I ask tons of questions about it. Do they actually RP their discussion, or simply roll the dice, or what? Again, you refuse to answer. I literally post my question four times, asking how either RPing the discussion or simply rolling the dice makes it better than D&D, and each time you carefully snipped it out of your reply to me.

You have a game where a character has to get blood to a naga. I ask tons of questions about this. So does @Lanefan. Again, it took days and probably scores of posts before someone else (@Old Fezziwig) said that equipment on your sheet gives you a bonus to rolls or makes rolls easier. But here, in this very post, all you're doing is quoting rules about how to acquire stuff, which is completely irrelevant.

Nearly every single time I have asked you a question, you have refused to provide a clear answer, even though doing so would have saved days of aggravation.

 

[robertsconley]

I appreciate the lengthy response & have a pretty solid grasp of how I think you handle stuff now; but I did want to just slide in and ask: Midkemia? Wow, talk about flashing back to my childhood books there! Is that a setting you built based off the Riftwar works?

First picture shows a screenshot of various directories, the last directory shown is Midkemia.

Ah thanks. That folder has my inspiration Pad PRO Tables for the Midkemia Press City book. One of the better city random encounter tables out there. If you code it up. A couple of month after I made this for myself Midkemia press released an app doing the same thing.

 

[Campbell]

So if I understand you correctly you are considering the following list.

• Players acting for their character (meta)
• Players acting as their character (character)
• Players playing a game that has nothing to do with their characters. (your addition)

What things in RPGs you consider falling under that last category? Starship Construction?
General worldbuilding? Although I would consider that part of acting for their characters. But to be fair, it can be a fairly involved process, given my experience with the topic.

It's about the game-ability of players acting as their characters, about being able to achieve outcomes through smart play of both the fiction and mechanics. So, it's stuff like telegraphing traps and what NPCs care about adding to your agency to achieve your objectives so that success and failure are earned things from a challenge oriented perspective. Worlds Without Number and most of Kevin Crawford's adventure design stuff has great pointers on how to ensure scenarios are designed with playability in mind while still maintaining the sandbox nature of play.

 

[Faolyn]

I had that exact scenario come up a while back. I warned the player in our session 0 that there it was common knowledge that were no orcs in the region, the area was dominated by goblinoids and gnolls. I then gave him the chance to change his favored enemy based on what he was likely to face. He didn't change and never encountered a single orc.

I don't build my campaigns around specific characters. We discuss options and general themes as a group and once the campaign starts group decides on direction. Hopefully I can come up with interesting obstacles and opportunities along the way but unless they decide to travel to a region where orcs are currently a threat no orcs will appear.

Heh. Now I'm imagining a ranger whose favored enemy is "the monster under the bed" due to childhood fears.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If we are going to break up agency in terms of character agency and content authority / meta-agency I think we should also talk about agency as a player of a game as at least a separate concern.

I assumed meta-agency was covering this. Can you give an example of what you mean ?

Especially in the realm of Sandbox play where Into the Odd and Worlds Without Number put a much stronger emphasis on scenario design from a gameplay perspective than Adventurer Conqueror King and @robertsconley 's enumerated approach while still very much being Living World Sandboxes.

I do think it is worth getting into some of the differences here. There are some approaches, which are totally fine, that I would call more procedurally heavy/consistent than how I do things. I may even use some of the procedures in question but not as a consistent thing that arises in play. For example, a sandbox where downtime is very much a part of the set steps of play. Another poster mentioned how their rulings usually become rules (at least if they prove workable and get used a lot). Again that is a good approach, but my style is all about not building up the rules further than they are. Even if I am using a rules medium or heavy, my rulings will be for individual cases and rarely turn into house rules.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

There's nothing at stake when it comes to finding a cup except that you, the GM (or whoever was GMing that day) decided there was, because of Reasons that wouldn't fly in any other game. There's nothing that says that a player must roll to see if they've got the guts to kill someone, except that the GM decided they should in order to further their own character's desires.

I want to zoom in on the bolded part, as I think it's what's important here. How other games handle things is beside the point, just in the sense that BW handles them differently. Not better, just different. This feels like a complaint that a hammer isn't a wrench. BW is an idiosyncratic design (I called it a game design cul de sac in the most influential RPGs thread, because it doesn't have non-BWHQ games following its lead -- we talk about Powered by the Apocalypse but there's no equivalent Burnt on the Wheel).

He doesn't need me to say it, but @pemerton's play here is entirely BW RAW and consonant with its principles. Other games would never have you roll to find a vessel for blood capture. BW does, because at that moment, it's what's most important to the character. And the character doesn't have it on them. Other games may ellide that moment, and that's great. But BW's rules tell us that we roll when there's something at stake. If we (metaphorical "we") handled things differently, we wouldn't be playing BW.

 

[Campbell]

Worlds Without Number asks the GM to create an adventure based on what players say the group wants to do the next session, with the following process:

1. Identify the Purpose of the Adventure
2. Pick A Primary Challenge for the adventure.
3. Use the challenge tools to flesh it out.
4. Add extra challenges.
5. Stitch the challenges together.
6. Identify rewards and consequences.

Basically you ask players what they are going to do the next session and based on that you consult the guidance for combat, social and exploration challenges.

For example, here is the guidance for social challenges

Creating Social Challenges

In many ways, social challenges are extremely simple. The PCs want something, the NPC has it, and the PCs need to figure out some way to make the NPC give it to them. They may want favors, information, money, or some particular action on the target’s part, but it’s essentially a challenge revolving around making the transaction.

In other ways, social challenges are hard. How can a GM figure out what kind of deals an NPC would be willing to make, or how much payment they’ll want for their help? How can social skills and powers earn their keep in such challenges without trivializing matters into a simple skill check?

Building the Target

A social challenge has a target, a particular person the PCs need to persuade or compel into doing something for them. If you’re to make a good challenge out of the matter, you need to build a target that can sensibly respond to the often-exotic persuasions that PCs tend to offer to NPCs. Answer the questions below to fashion this target.

Is the desired result possible?

Do the PCs want something that the target even can or would possibly be able to provide? What they want might just be beyond the power of the NPC, or so hateful to them that they’d never grant it.

If that’s the case you either need to telegraph this to the PCs and prepare alternate material for when they give up, or else you need to provide a lead to some action or motivation that might change the situation enough to make the result possible. Maybe some special favor, the death of a rival, the loss of some authority, or some other twist can turn the unthinkable into the feasible.

Why won’t they give it?

Why won’t the NPC simply grant the result for the asking or for some easily-paid price? If a modest bribe is enough to get the result the PCs want, you haven’t made much of a social challenge. That might be okay for you, but you need to know it before the PCs breeze past it. Knowing why the NPC won’t cooperate easily helps inform the next step.

What do they want from the PCs?

What kind of favor, payment, or service do they want from the heroes that would make their desired result possible? What kind of problem does the NPC have that the PCs can plausibly resolve? It may be that nothing the PCs can do can satisfy the NPC, in which case a less equitable form of persuasion is needed.

What can the PCs do to pressure them?

What levers can the PCs pull to force the NPC to cooperate? Blackmail, old friendships, naked physical force, or some other squeeze might be enough to force the NPC into accepting terms they would never consider otherwise.

How can they hurt the PCs?

What qualities do they have that would make their enmity dangerous? Are they personally mighty in their combat prowess? Do they have a lot of friends at court? Are they connected with the criminal underworld? If the PCs get their way through pressure and don’t intimidate the NPC so completely as to make them swear off further contact, there will likely be consequences from the NPC’s enmity.

How will the PCs learn about them?

A social challenge only works if the PCs know who they need to persuade. A particular crime boss might be the woman they need to win over, but if the PCs never hear about her there’s not much point in prepping the challenge. Be generous about throwing hooks to the target, because the real meat of the challenge happens after they meet.

This is sort of thought I was talking about up thread being important when designing scenarios.

I think separating out this sort of concern from authority of over setting is pretty important. These sorts of concern are very central to the way a lot of folks orient themselves towards more conventional play.

 

[pemerton]

Were Gygax's specific choices made to relate to the goals, drives and feelings of specific PCs? Did Gygax "frame scenes" always with those specific PC concerns in mind, with plausibility a secondary concern?

He wrote up the Fraz Urb'luu room because it would be fun. It was not particularly plausible as far as I understand it, but no less plausible than other curious elements of Castle Greyhawk.

 

[pemerton]

Worlds Without Number asks the GM to create an adventure based what players say the group wants to do the next session

Meta-agency!

 

[TwoSix]

I'm just going to say this: You are not good at providing information. You have a game where one player "puts on a GM hat" and decides that another player must make a Steel check. I ask if this is a thing any player can do; I ask if this is a GMPC; I ask what a GM can actually do in this game; I ask a dozen questions about this.

I'm just going to say this: When I have another poster ask me a "dozen questions" about a game they don't seem to understand because they're looking to nitpick my GMing decisions, I'm also not inclined to answer them.