Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8642363" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The core of Burning Wheel resolution is a test (check) against a difficulty - either a fixed obstacle grounded in the fiction of the task attempted (and their are pages and pages of obstacles for various skills used to attempt various tasks), or a versus test (opposed check).</p><p></p><p>But BW introduces a couple of other principles that govern resolution.</p><p></p><p>(1) Intent and Task means (i) that successful resolution achieves not only the task, but the underlying intent, and (ii) that failure is to be narrated primarily by reference to failure of intent, with failure of task being only one possible way that that might be done - this is the "fail forward" sub-principle of Intent and Task. Taken together, (i) and (ii) generate a <em>focus</em> on <em>what is the intent that is at issue</em> in resolving a particular declared action.</p><p></p><p>(2) Let it Ride, means that once a test is made, there are "no retries". If the test succeeds, the GM must honour intent being realised. If the test fails, the player must suck up intent not being realised. This generates <em>constraint</em> on both players and GM.</p><p></p><p>(Torchbearer uses a broadly comparable set of principles: in place of Let it Ride there is Fun Once; sub-principle (i) of Intent and Task applies via Overcoming Obstacles, which is both a mechanical principle but also a principle about what success means; in place of (ii) the GM is allowed to grant that the obstacle is overcome but tax (via a condition) or to "fail forward" via a twist, which is a new obstacle.)</p><p></p><p>We can observe that the point made by Vincent Baker about task resolution - ie that it is up to the GM to correlate <em>success or failure at the task</em> with <em>win or loss in relation to the underlying stakes</em> for which the task is attempted (such as making it to the ship before it sails) - does not obtain in Burning Wheel. Intent and Task establishes a correlation between success and winning that is independent of the GM, and Let it Ride prevents the GM from introducing more fiction that would break that correlation, thus locking in the win. Intent and task allows the GM to <em>decide</em>, as part of their narration, whether or not <em>losing</em> correlates to <em>failure at the task</em>; but Let it Ride locks in the loss, and precludes the GM from introducing additional fiction that serves up a win or permits another attempt to win. It is this combined operation of (1) and (2) that turn a system that - on the surface - looks like task resolution into a system of conflict resolution.</p><p></p><p>It's interesting to note that a by-product of this combined operation of (1) and (2) is that the following correlation is never an option in Burning Wheel: <em>failure at the task</em> being correlated with <em>winning in relation to the underlying stakes</em>. This makes the system (including its principles) rather unsuitable for simulationist play, as the exclusion of that option is not due to any in-world causal relationship (the fiction of BW is not a fiction in which people never get lucky despite their failures) but is rather just a consequence of the way the system works. (In Torchbearer, the GM cannot break the correlation between a player rolling a success at the task, and winning in relation to the underlying obstacle - this is the combined operation of Overcoming Obstacles and Fun Once. However, <em>failure at the task</em> can be correlated with <em>winning in relation to the underlying stakes</em>, at the GM's discretion, and at the cost of a condition. These two features reinforce the gamist as opposed to "story now" character of Torchbearer: the GM has more say over how the "story" unfolds, but their exercise of that say increases the "grind and conditions" pressure on the players.)</p><p></p><p>I imagine that someone could try and run 5e D&D using Intent-and-Task (including "fail forward") and Let-it-Ride. In that case, the system would be one of conflict resolution rather than task resolution. Whether it would work very well I don't know. I think it would require ignoring some rules text, that tends to strongly imply that failure of a check must correlate to failure at the task. There would also be challenges arising from the spell system, which by default doesn't require checks and has no obvious mechanism for preventing retries. (Trying to implement Overcoming Obstacles and Fun Once in 5e would raise an additional question: what is the equivalent of conditions-and-the-grind. Exhaustion levels? Hit point may not cut it.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8642363, member: 42582"] The core of Burning Wheel resolution is a test (check) against a difficulty - either a fixed obstacle grounded in the fiction of the task attempted (and their are pages and pages of obstacles for various skills used to attempt various tasks), or a versus test (opposed check). But BW introduces a couple of other principles that govern resolution. (1) Intent and Task means (i) that successful resolution achieves not only the task, but the underlying intent, and (ii) that failure is to be narrated primarily by reference to failure of intent, with failure of task being only one possible way that that might be done - this is the "fail forward" sub-principle of Intent and Task. Taken together, (i) and (ii) generate a [i]focus[/i] on [i]what is the intent that is at issue[/i] in resolving a particular declared action. (2) Let it Ride, means that once a test is made, there are "no retries". If the test succeeds, the GM must honour intent being realised. If the test fails, the player must suck up intent not being realised. This generates [i]constraint[/i] on both players and GM. (Torchbearer uses a broadly comparable set of principles: in place of Let it Ride there is Fun Once; sub-principle (i) of Intent and Task applies via Overcoming Obstacles, which is both a mechanical principle but also a principle about what success means; in place of (ii) the GM is allowed to grant that the obstacle is overcome but tax (via a condition) or to "fail forward" via a twist, which is a new obstacle.) We can observe that the point made by Vincent Baker about task resolution - ie that it is up to the GM to correlate [i]success or failure at the task[/i] with [i]win or loss in relation to the underlying stakes[/i] for which the task is attempted (such as making it to the ship before it sails) - does not obtain in Burning Wheel. Intent and Task establishes a correlation between success and winning that is independent of the GM, and Let it Ride prevents the GM from introducing more fiction that would break that correlation, thus locking in the win. Intent and task allows the GM to [i]decide[/i], as part of their narration, whether or not [i]losing[/i] correlates to [i]failure at the task[/i]; but Let it Ride locks in the loss, and precludes the GM from introducing additional fiction that serves up a win or permits another attempt to win. It is this combined operation of (1) and (2) that turn a system that - on the surface - looks like task resolution into a system of conflict resolution. It's interesting to note that a by-product of this combined operation of (1) and (2) is that the following correlation is never an option in Burning Wheel: [i]failure at the task[/i] being correlated with [i]winning in relation to the underlying stakes[/i]. This makes the system (including its principles) rather unsuitable for simulationist play, as the exclusion of that option is not due to any in-world causal relationship (the fiction of BW is not a fiction in which people never get lucky despite their failures) but is rather just a consequence of the way the system works. (In Torchbearer, the GM cannot break the correlation between a player rolling a success at the task, and winning in relation to the underlying obstacle - this is the combined operation of Overcoming Obstacles and Fun Once. However, [i]failure at the task[/i] can be correlated with [i]winning in relation to the underlying stakes[/i], at the GM's discretion, and at the cost of a condition. These two features reinforce the gamist as opposed to "story now" character of Torchbearer: the GM has more say over how the "story" unfolds, but their exercise of that say increases the "grind and conditions" pressure on the players.) I imagine that someone could try and run 5e D&D using Intent-and-Task (including "fail forward") and Let-it-Ride. In that case, the system would be one of conflict resolution rather than task resolution. Whether it would work very well I don't know. I think it would require ignoring some rules text, that tends to strongly imply that failure of a check must correlate to failure at the task. There would also be challenges arising from the spell system, which by default doesn't require checks and has no obvious mechanism for preventing retries. (Trying to implement Overcoming Obstacles and Fun Once in 5e would raise an additional question: what is the equivalent of conditions-and-the-grind. Exhaustion levels? Hit point may not cut it.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top