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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Fun in regards to specific player/PC desires?

 

[pemerton]

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.

The Steel rules are not in Hub and Spokes.

But p 72 is there. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Yet that is what you repeatedly advocate - that the player asks for their to be a cup, so that they can pursue their Belief, and you think the GM should just say "yes".

As for Steel, I've already told you that cold-blooded murder is a trigger for a Steel test. Here's a post that says a bit more about it:

Burning Wheel has a subsystem called Steel. Multiple aspects of the character's build feed into this subsystem.

A PC has an initial steel rating, which is determined by reference both to some of their stats, and to various aspects of their backstory (eg having given birth to a child adds +1 to the initial rating). Steel advances in play in a fashion broadly similar to other abilities.

Steel is tested when the GM calls for a test; more on this immediately below. But for completeness, I'll also note that if the player declares a particular type of manoeuvre for their PC in a skirmish (roughly, closing with someone who is shooting at you, without taking advantage of cover or manoeuvring - ie a steady advance or charge across open ground) this is also resolved via a Steel test.

When the GM calls for a Steel test, the general rules for tests apply - ie there must be something at stake, as determined by the player-authored PC priorities (Beliefs, Instincts, traits, relationships, etc). And also, the circumstances must be the sort of circumstances that can trigger a Steel test. These are listed in the rulebook, and include fear, shock, surprise, pain, wonderment at magical effects, and attempting cold-blooded murder or similar ruthless action. The rulebook has dozens of descriptors for these sorts of circumstances, so I am not going to copy them all out. I'm trusting that what I have said conveys the gist.

The obstacle for the Steel test is Hesitation, which is rated as 10 - Will. (Assuming a mundane shade for Will - Grey (Heroic) or White (Supernatural) shade change the calculation.) There are traits which can modify hesitation, either globally or contextually (eg the cold-blooded trait reduces hesitation from murder; the fearless trait reduces hesitation from the fear of violence, but expressly excludes murder from the reduction; etc). The obstacle for the Steel test can also be modified by circumstances, eg committing murder is +2 Ob. When the test is rolled, if it it fails each degree of failure constitutes hesitation for 1 action (which is a unit of time measurement that the system uses - roughly 1 action equals 1 heartbeat, so a second or so).

The effect of this means that low Steel and low Will are likely to produce hesitation (few dice against a high Ob); whereas mediocre or better Steel and high Will have a good chance of not producing hesitation (a reasonable number of dice against a low Ob).

If the character hesitates, the player gets to choose what the character does - there is a default list, and various traits can change or add to the list. The default options are to "stand and drool" ie be too shocked or stunned to do anything; fall prone and beg for mercy; swoon; or run screaming.

There are also rules for determining how to factor actions of hesitation into various contexts of resolution, which don't use a uniform action economy (and in some cases don't use an action economy at all).

Of course you don't have to believe me.

 

[Faolyn]

I love it. People are going absolutely nuts over Steel tests in Burning Wheel - which is self-consciously a game focused on characters, their struggles, their foibles and frailties - and then it turns out that, in plain old, adventure-oriented 5e D&D, a character can be frightened by a lion's roar.

I just love it!

That's new in 5.24. It wasn't a thing in any previous edition (possible exception being 4e, since I don't own that book to look it up, but I doubt it).

 

[pemerton]

Fun in regards to specific player/PC desires?

I don't know. I'm not his biographer, nor one of his players. Why would that matter?

 

[Faolyn]

Hang on - so you can't actually conceive of a person not having the equipment that would help them? Have you never been caught in the rain without an umbrella, or in the cold without a jumper, or found yourself locked out of your house with your keys inside?

Completely bizarre, from my point of view.

If I am in thrall to a terrible monster, and that monster is demanding I do something (I assume, "or else"), then I darn well will be prepared to do that thing.

 

[TwoSix]

If I am in thrall to a terrible monster, and that monster is demanding I do something (I assume, "or else"), then I darn well will be prepared to do that thing.

Did you read the context of what happened? The character was in no way expecting to have gather up spilled blood from a freshly murdered corpse.

 

[pemerton]

If I am in thrall to a terrible monster, and that monster is demanding I do something (I assume, "or else"), then I darn well will be prepared to do that thing.

OK, good for you.

 

[Faolyn]

If I want to play a game in which my PC is going to do forest-y adventuring, then I will tell the GM. If the GM ignores that, and presents me with a cave-y scenario, then that is the dysfunction I'm talking about. I mean, just come out and tell me what you want to do.

This whole idea of being coy about the game, of keeping it secret what play is about, is bizarre to me.

Be that as it may, do you agree that GM would be railroading the players by giving them the "option" of going into the cave or doing nothing?

If someone tells me that they want me to play a dungeon game, and I don't want to, I'll just politely decline. But to reiterate, when a few years ago I turned up to RPG day and broke out White Plume Mountain, I wasn't railroading anyone. The players rolled their PCs, I read out the (pretty silly) module background, and then we started playing. As I remember it, they got hosed by the induction trap, did OK against some undead in the circumstances, and solved the problem of the frictionless corridor.

That's not a railroad. It was D&D c 1977.

Which was railroaded. The fact that they hadn't used that term yet doesn't mean it wasn't a railroad. Do you think that, back in the 70s, there weren't people who wanted to play a forest adventure but got stuck with yet another monster-filled cave?

 

[CellarHeroes]

Do you think that Luke Crane goes around forcing people to play Burning Wheel with its Steel rules?

Oh...BW is a Luke Crane game? Well then, this conversation has taken a dark turn.
slowly backs away

 

[Campbell]

Fun in regards to specific player/PC desires?

At the very least Tomb of Horrors was designed to see if it could kill Robilar! That's more GM desires for the character though!