Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7324400" data-attributes="member: 42582">That makes sense. At my table, the players recognise that Burning Wheel imposes different demands on a player from (say) Cortex+ Heroic.I agree.I'm not saying it could never come up or be relevant. But I don't think it's a core case of player generated content in RPGing.NPCs don't contrast with dungeons - they're present in dungeons as much as elsewhere.The wilderness in B2 is not a departure from dungeon design, though - it's really an instance of it (confined in exploratory/spacial terms, with encounters established and placed on the map in advance). And the Keep is also primarily a source of puzzle-type encounters (eg the Priest in the tavenr).T1 is a different sort of case which was discussed a bit upthread. It's not clear to me what Gygax intended to be done with the Village (as opposed to the Moat House, where I think the intended use is quite clear).Yes. Different mechanics generate different play experiences. I don't think that's controversial. My point is that, when you assert "If the players can find the map in the study on a high enough check, therefore there is no obstacle to them finding it because they can just keep checking" you are making assumptions about the permissibility of retries that aren't true in many RPGs.The next step is to realise that games which permit the players to generate content by way of checks probablyi have ways of managing retries. (Eg Burning Wheel has a "let it ride" rule. In Cortex+ Heroic, the Doom Pool grows over time and once it has at least 2d12 in it the GM can spend those dice to end the scene. 4e has no formal "no retries" rule, but at one point Stephen Radley-McFarland posted a blog on the WotC site suggesting that such a rule would be a good addition to the system.Well, here's pne way to think about it.Suppose the PCs have been tasked by some other being, tell me where the map is! Then finding the map in an unbreakable case; or finding it and then setting it alight, it a success. The PCs (and their players) have what they want, namely, knowledge of the map's location.But suppose - as I was assuming in my example - that the PC's want the map so they can use it to get somewhere else. Then learning the location of the map but failing to gain the desired information is a failure.This is why you can't adjudicate in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice", "fail forward" manner without knowing the intention that lies behind the task. Hence why the basic maxim for action resolution in Burning Wheel is "intent and task". And hence why, in 4e, the DMG advises the GM adjudicating an action declaration in a skill challenge, to get clear on what a player is trying to achieve by using a particular skill in the challenge (see pp 74, 75).Huh? Failuore will result from failed checks. You don't need to turn successful checks into failures as well!I didn't slight anything. I asked "What is worldbuilding for?" If the answer is, it's for X, but there seem to be other ways of achieving X, then it's natural to ask - so why achieve X that way rather than some other way.I should also note that you're rather fond of telling me that my game is "Schroedinger's world", that PCs never/rarely fail and hence the play is very easy, etc. I've never taken it that these are intended to be compliments! If you think I'm wrong in supposing that some of your worldbuilding is a way of imposing the GM's vision of the game onto play, then tell me why I'm wrong. If you think I'm right about that (eg [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] seems to, as best I can tell), and think that's a good thing and hence one of the things that worldbuilding is for, tell me why it's good.If asking the question is per se a slight - well, I don't get that at all.</blockquote>

Verification