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

[SableWyvern]

In my Level Up game, we have spirits. They didn't make the world but they can grant powers. Dark Sun had clerics of elemental forces, not gods, and there's been the idea of clerics gaining powers from non-divine causes and simply from sheer belief since at least 2e.

B/X and BECMI had clerics that just got their power from vague and undefined alignment-based forces.

 

[Faolyn]

I think you are both rules lawyering AND nitpicking the question of granularity of action resolution. The rules say you "Hesitate" I don't think it says when this happens or how.

There are four options that can occur when you hesitate, although off-hand the only ones I remember are "stand and drool" and "run away screaming." I don't think it says who gets to decide what happens.

The intent of the Steel rule is CLEARLY to allow the dice to adjudicate whether or not your mental state is overwhelmingly murderous or not.

Well, no. The intent of the Steel rule is that it acts like a fear/awe/sanity check in any other game. It's rolled when you are "confronted with surprise, fear, pain, or wonderment." That's all it talks about until you look at the table of modifiers where murder is suddenly listed. And it's not even clear that it's talking about committing murder until after that, when there's a list of difficulties. I can't remember them all, except that committing murder is level 5 and watching a childbirth is level 2.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm just extraordinarily frustrated with the constant accusations, the unending litanies of requirements, the "no you're just wrong and I won't explain why", etc., etc., etc.

People do explain why. The problem is you have a specific answer in mind and anyone whose explanation isn't that answer is ignored at best and treated nastily at worst.

 

[Faolyn]

It's possible that they would change the text if they were releasing a new edition. It'd be worthwhile, and Crane's capable of change, if slowly (cf., the trait change we discussed previously). But the deprecation of postscript fonts means that the books are essentially stuck as they were in December 2022 until such a time as Crane decides he wants to re-do the layout, which seems unlikely based on his description of circumstances.

I read that via reddit a couple of days ago. It seems that he could run a... well, probably not kickstarter, considering, but could use patreon or ko-fi or backerkit in order to raise money for both new fonts (assuming he didn't decide to switch to open source fonts) and to pay for someone to do the labor. Considering the game is popular, even if I don't get why, I'm sure he could raise the money in a day at most.

 

[pemerton]

The objective fact is that frightened condition of D&D does not alter thoughts. It alters how you perform certain actions (disadvantage on rolls when the object of your fear is within sight) and your movement (you can't get closer to the object of your fear; in some rare cases, you may be forced to use your speed to move away from the object of your fear).

This does rather raise the question, why is the character disadvantaged and why can the character not move closer to the object of their fear? The natural explanation would seem to be because they are frightened (it even says that on the tin!).

 

[thefutilist]

Well, I suspect that play would veer off in directions that were dictated by plausible events that arise out of the hidden backstory of the setting itself. So, in the Narrativist play I am familiar with, if an issue was settled, the Fighter goes and beats up the ruffians threatening Smirk the Halfling, then that's probably about it. Not to say that the ruffians might not show up again later, with a few friends, as a GM move in some future scene. Just that, once the players have resolved whatever, the Fighter's bond, motivated that element, that the element itself has served its purpose. BRG might well have town watches and magistrates, and who knows what, get involved. Everyone ends up in jail and then they get dragooned into something or other. But what would all that have to do with character concerns? Nothing. The game has veered off into some sort of fiction that engages with what the GM has written before.

So, I am not sure I agree with you that they're Narrativists. That being said, some Narrativist play is not focused on things interior to the PCs. Premise could be external. I think it is still necessary for the game to focus ON the PCs though. Maybe a game could focus on a social question, more generally, but then I'd expect the Play to Find Out to include "where do the PCs ultimately fall on this, how, and why?" Certainly Low Myth is not a requirement though, I agree on that.

I mean I'm jumping the gun because I don't really know how sable or bedrock actually play.


In principle all the stuff you mention is fine. If secret backstory means they all end up dragooned into doing some adventure stuff on the other side of the world, so be it.


As long as the following four things apply:

Drama and group interest in it

Emergence (Even if it's done through secret backstory and GM fiat)

Character decisions aren't based on genre recreation.

Important stuff isn't decided by player skill


Then I'd classify it as Narrativist. Everything else is just various dials. I do have a caveat though, which honestly might apply. If there isn't drama in a session and the group is fine with that, then maybe not after all.

It's kind of arbitrary but you can spend a session doing small talk while shopping, if you do two sessions doing small talk while shopping then yeah it's a push to say that's Narrativist because there's no drama. (if the groups happy just doing endless mundane stuff that is)

Also I really do mean group fun. If your players are turtled up and going along with stuff except for some thespo moments. Then I'm going to raise an eyebrow no matter what you're doing. Also if you have to stick with the party then I'm going to disqualify it (maybe that's arbitrary but these are my rules). Although it's the latter clause that probably disqualifies a whole lot of play.

 

[robertsconley]

This is a super interesting post! Thanks for describing your process and the tools you're using in detail like this. I can see you've put a lot of work into your game/setting to create this web you can assess and use easily in play, and the "most interesting given what the players are trying to do" heuristic within the confines of your existing consistent world state resonates.

I appreciate the compliment.

Do you think this might be still similar to how BITD has you run its factions and NPCs to portray an accurate and believable world state though? It strikes me as very similar now that I see the fullness of your decision making:

Among other things, one of Blades in the Dark’s creative goals is outlined like this:

PLAYING A SESSION
So, what’s it like to play? A session of Blades in the Dark is like an episode of a TV show. There are one or two main events, plus maybe some side-story elements, which all fit into an ongoing series. A session of play can last anywhere from two to six hours, depending on the preferences of the group.

And the main rulebook (other BitD games focus on different genres/settings) centers on the industrial-fantasy city of Doskvol:

THE GAME
Blades in the Dark is a game about a group of daring scoundrels building a criminal enterprise on the haunted streets of an industrial-fantasy city. There are heists, chases, escapes, dangerous bargains, bloody skirmishes, deceptions, betrayals, victories, and deaths.

We play to find out if the fledgling crew can thrive amidst the teeming threats of rival gangs, powerful noble families, vengeful ghosts, the Bluecoats of the City Watch, and the siren song of the scoundrels’ own vices.

Given that focus, it makes sense that the system has chapters devoted to things like The Crew, The Score, Downtime, and tools like progress clocks to track the shifting relationship between factions, gangs, nobles, ghosts, and the watch.

My campaigns also involve factions and NPC plots, so we’re both solving similar problems. There’s overlap, parallel techniques, and even thematic resonance.

However, where we diverge is in our structure, how those techniques are applied in play.

A concise way to put it is that our respective "How to Play" chapters would be very different. That difference is illustrated in the quote above: a session of BitD is like an episode of a TV show. In contrast, a session of my Living World Sandbox is more like visiting an exotic destination.

There’s more nuance to it for both systems, but that core distinction is why BitD is its own thing, and my Living Sandbox is its own thing. Even when we use similar mechanics, the underlying assumptions and goals are different.

 

[SableWyvern]

Drama and group interest in it

As a group, I'd say we're middling here. Intimate relationships tend not to get a lot of screen time, but drama in general certainly can drive play or make for an interesting pay off for events that have occurred.

Emergence (Even if it's done through secret backstory and GM fiat)

I think it's clear I'm big on this one.

Character decisions aren't based on genre recreation.

I'm currently running a supers game where this is right out the window, but the current game is also a complete antithesis to my normal style in multiple respects. In the types of games I usually run, this is 100% the case.

Important stuff isn't decided by player skill

I'd say we fail on this one regularly. It's happens more in some games than others, but even when it isn't happening, it's not because any efforts are being made to avoid it.

 

[pemerton]

But the things like what @Lanefan brought up--After I hesitate, can I continue my action? Are PC audiences forced to go along with the winners of the duel of wits, and if so, for how long? Why is it considered against the spirit of the rules for me to carry a waterskin with me, when another character is in armor?--they're not answered.

It's not against the spirit of the rules to carry a waterskin. But I was asked why the character didn't have one, and answered.

As for the other things, they are answered, And I've posted the answers in this thread, multiple times. Including most recently in post 7506.

Except that the rules are also clear that the PC must agree. "Although the Duel of Wits cannot make a character like or believe anything, it can force him to agree to something--even if only for the time being."

In English, "agree to" and "agree with" are not synonyms. The latter means something like to share, or to come to share, the belief/opinion of another. The former means something like to undertake to perform a task at the behest of another. A Duel of Wits can generate the latter outcome. But does not generate the former - that's up to the participant controlling the character.

For instance, when Aramina was persuaded to repair Thurgon's armour, that doesn't change how she feels about him. But it does mean that she has agreed to do the task that he has requested of her.

This is why there is heading that says "not Mind Control".

Now, maybe Luke Crane really meant it when he said that the DoW rules aren't designed for PC vs. PC, winner takes all conflicts

Where are you positing that he says this?

If you are putting a lot of weight on "winner takes all" then there is a degree of truth to what you say, because of the compromise rules - although it is possible to lose a Duel of Wits without inflicting any loss on the opponent's body of argument (that has happened to me playing Thurgon), in which case the winner does take all.

But the rules absolutely are for arguments between PCs. That's obvious, and has been obvious to me since I first read them. Upthread I posted the text from The Codex where Luke Crane talks about the effect the rules have had on play at his table. And here is a bit form p 104 of Revised:

Two players are arguing because one player wants to have his character take some rash, adventure-ending action. The player arguing against taking the rash action loses the duel. However, he punched significant holes in his friend's argument. The rash-acting character still won the duel, so he can proceed as planned, but he must compromise a bit: He agrees to enact his plan later.​

It is also the objective fact that in Burning Wheel, a character who loses a duel of wits is forced to agree with the winner. There does not appear to be a "agree to disagree" option, the loser can't just say "&(#^ you!" after the dice are rolled and walk away or simply pretend to agree but actually plan on undermining the winner, and despite me asking several times, nobody has told me what happens if the player is convinced but the dice say they're not. The closest I got to an answer is when pemerton said there's no social agreement or collaborative storytelling in the game.

If the game participant controlling the losing character (player vis-a-vis PC; GM vis-a-vis NPC) could just ignore the outcome, then there would be no point having the system and using it to generate an outcome!

But if a character is arguing in a Duel of Wits and decides to abandon their argument, then there is no conflict. They can just agree with what the other person is saying. If you want to frame this in mechanical terms, they hesitate, permitting the other person's Points to go through unopposed. (And mechanically, they would be bound, as a loser of the DoW.) This is analogous to a character, in combat, choosing to take no action, permitting their opponent to run them through.

We'll never know!

I actually think we do know. We have the rules, which are pretty clear, supplemented by the commentary.

And as I posted already in reply to you, we also have the example of how Torchbearer breaks the DoW down into three different conflict types (which matters, in TB2e, because it changes the relevant skills and also how the conflict interacts with TB2e's Precedence mechanic): convince crowd, negotiate and convince. In BW terms, convince crowd is a Duel of Wits using Oratory to win over a crowd, such as the attempt to convince the prince; negotiate is a DoW using Haggling to get a good deal; and convince is a DoW using Persuasion or Interrogation to get someone to agree to do something or tell you something. (The two other "Duelling Skills" mentioned are Rhetoric and Stentorious debate. The latter is a Dwarven skill the can be used as Oratory, Haggling or Persuasion. The former is a specialised skill that is not easy to get, and that can be used in any DoW but only in a DoW.)

Look, all I'm saying is that the book itself presents a rather different point of view than what I've seen people actually say about it. I can't help but wonder if the fans are simply giving it the most generous reading possible and starting from there.

A general principle of interpretation, which works as well for rules as anything else, is that if one candidate interpretation makes the rule a nonsense and another doesn't, the other is to be preferred.

But in this case I don't think we even need to deploy that principle. The rules are clear, and they have been elaborated via the commentary in The Adventure Burner that was reprinted in The Codex. The commentary both in the rulebooks and in the later works is pretty opinionated an unambiguous.

And so I am pretty confident that I grasp Luke Crane's design and its logic. And there are three further bits of evidence that make me confident of this:

*When I play Burning Wheel, it works out exactly as his rulebook tells me it will;

*I had to make a decision about how to mechanically operationalise the Force of Will spell, and I decided that it changed one Belief of the target - in a later version of the rules (Gold Revised) the spell was updated in exactly this way;

*Luke Crane called out one of my Torchbearer actual play reports on his own discussion forum, in pretty favourable terms.​

If you don't care for the game, then don't play it. That's pretty straightforward! But it's not a game that is confusing or confused about how it is to be played, how it works, and what sort of experience it will deliver.

(1) DoWs are for BFDs in the fiction, not every disagreement;

I think, for those who are not familiar with BW, that a gloss on this can help: what makes something a "big deal" is not any objective property of it (eg war and peace; life and death; wealth or poverty; etc) but how it relates to a player's priorities for their PC.

So resolving a disagreement that no one cares about but the two people involved - eg Thurgon and Aramina, over whether she should repair his armour - is not a misuse of the rules. It's a core intended use case.

(2) no one's obliged to accept one

I think a gloss on this can help too. As the rules say (Revised p 98),

[Walking away] is a valid method of preserving the sanctity of one's pride and one's argument, but it may allow your opponent to reign unchecked and control the outcome of the situation. Noe, though, if a player chooses to walk away, he must shut up. No more talking about it with him!​

That passage is written in Luke Crane's characteristic style, moving between the "in fiction" perspective and the "at the table" perspective. Nevertheless it is pretty clear, to me at least. Walking away means surrendering whatever was at stake. As a participant in the game, your character is not party to it, but you've given up control over it. It's a BW analogue to what in AW and similar games would be described as ignoring a soft move and thus handing the GM a golden opportunity on a plate.

Players can always try to approach things differently. The only thing that's settled until things change is that discrete situation/approach.

I would add: and they're bound by the outcome. If they lose the Haggling duel, and so agree to pay (say) 3 cash dice for the <whatever it is they're haggling over>, then they have to hand over the cash. They're not precluded from trying to steal their cash back, though.

This requires players to be honest rather than cheaters, just like any other game. When the PCs in my TB2e game were persuaded by Lareth to help persuade the pirates to tithe to him, in the course of persuading him to acknowledge Fea-bella as his half-sister, they couldn't just ignore their promise. They had to follow up on it. (And, given that it is now a player priority, naturally I framed scenes that spoke to it - in reasonably short order the PCs found themselves embroiled in the machinations of the river pirates in Nulb.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

As long as the following four things apply:

Drama and group interest in it

I wouldn't want to put words in Rob's mouth because he doesn't usually mention drama. I often do but I mean iin two senses: the drama that emerges as a result of PCs and NPCs (and factions) interacting and drama the GM decides to introduce. But this aspect of my style is something I would consider an outlier for many sandbox groups

I would say yes to group interest, but it isn't like they ask for drama and I give it to them, and they don't make anything resembling a wish list. They make characters, pursue their goals, but in a martial world populated by wuxia characters, drama unfolds pretty organically

Emergence (Even if it's done through secret backstory and GM fiat)

If I understand the term, yes, but I also suspect there may be differences of definition here

Character decisions aren't based on genre recreation.

This is a real gray area. I mean characters base their decision on what their goals and interests are, but then so do wuxia characters. But they live in world of wuxia, and they are created with wuxia as a foundational concept (I wouldn't generally introduce NPCs wildly out of genre for example). I would say genre emulation is going on here. I am not sure what you mean by genre recreation. One thing I would avoid is doing something like imposing a 4 act wuxia movie structure on the session (I might do this in a different kind of campaign, but not in my wuxia sandboxes). So isn't going to flow like a wuxia movie. But it is going to have many wuxia elements in it

Important stuff isn't decided by player skill

Player skill is definitely something I factor in. They are playing a character, but the player is also experiencing the world through their character. This means sometimes player skill is going to be at the forefront.