You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Manbearcat]

@Nagol I'm generally in agreement with you on most of your points. Here is the thing though. We're talking about technique, table agenda, and social contract working in concert with system infrastructure and design. This is why we've had so many conversations regarding 4e design (I won't even bring up the "power which shall not be named") and the table dissonance when trying to shoehorn "classic" D&D open-world sandboxing coupled with the the presumption of actor stance with a heavy does of metagame aversion.

On the polar ends of the various axes:

- if I'm wanting a 100 % scene based game, then I want resources isolated to scenes/encounters and the expectation of pacing and play built around each scene being a closed system. Any "extra-scene" resources and pacing design that spans multiple scenes is problematic.

- if I'm wanting a 100 % open-world exploration experience that presumes actor stance, process simulation and eschews the metagame, then any bits that are "arbitrarily" confined to the scene/encounter for gamist interests is problematic. Any author and director stance player resources that promote metagame leveraging and player narrative authorship (the outright creation of world content or subversion of the autonomy of other actors) are problematic.

- (* your scenario and the answer to your question) if I'm wanting strategic "step on up" gamist experience then I'm going to want strategic resources (such as plane shift) that require cost-benefit analysis at a strategic level...and players will have to deal with the consequences of actualizing them. The play at the table should presume that they will have those consequences and will have to deal with them; in the same way that they will reap the rewards upon successful strategic use of them. If I don't want this paradigm to be at work then I shouldn't be playing a system where resource schemes are fundamentally organized around this premise. OR, the table is going to need to come up with techniques and strong social accord to avoid such a scenario (which then begs the question...why don't you just play a game that supports what you're looking for rather than forcing a square peg into a round hole?)

- if I'm wanting tactical "step on up" gamist experience then I'm going to want tactical resources (such as the 4e at-will/encounter power system) that are isolated to a closed system (scene/encounter) with respect to scope and impact.

Most people don't play at the absolute polarized ends of these spectra. However, some do and it is perfectly feasible to play 100 % closed scene, author/director stance-friendly, tactical play just as you can have 100 % open world, actor-scene only/metagame averse, strategic play. They are both legitimate, functional (and quite different from one another) playstyles. The further you move away from the absolute, polarized ends of those spectrums, then you're going to get into the realm where home-grown technique, coordinated table agenda, and social contract manifest to arbitrate these disputes.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

- if I'm wanting a 100 % scene based game, then I want resources isolated to scenes/encounters and the expectation of pacing and play built around each scene being a closed system. Any "extra-scene" resources and pacing design that spans multiple scenes is problematic.

<snip>

I don't think you've picked my agenda correctly. Let's take a closer look at this scenario for a moment.

Assume the current scene is one where a mysterious gent offers the PCs a one-way ride towards the city of their dreams -- the one with the goal inside it. With a twinkle in his eye he says' 'but it won't be easy -- you'll be in the right area, but wrong spot. I can get you closer, but the rest is up to you."

The next scene is the desert in the Abyss. With that set-up do you think it should be a simple transition scene to the city? The set-up suggests something the PCs need to do to find and travel to their destination (at a minimum with the possibility of opening a narrative lock as well). Th PCs may be fixated on gettig to the city. The players may want to get to the city, but the set-up doesn't get them there. There are still hoops to jump or camels to barter for.

Now if the gent said "I can get you there sure! But your shoes may need replacing from the walk, if you catch my drift" then I'd buy it as a transiton scene because there was set-up to expect a double-cut or at a most a quick scene upon arrival in case the players want to do sometihng else.

I suggest the situation faced by the group was closer to the first scene. The group used an ability to get closer but the rest is up to them. Can the DM use force to transition? Sure. Should he be expected to do so if you haven't helped yourself? Nope. If you don't want to surrender narrative control in a random spot 5-500 miles from your destination on a plane you don't know then prepare resources that allow you to maintain narrative control -- in D&D that can mean in-game resources like fast-travel, while other games offer meta-game resources like declarations, plot coupons, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

Assume the current scene is one where a mysterious gent offers the PCs a one-way ride towards the city of their dreams -- the one with the goal inside it. With a twinkle in his eye he says' 'but it won't be easy -- you'll be in the right area, but wrong spot. I can get you closer, but the rest is up to you."

The next scene is the desert in the Abyss. With that set-up do you think it should be a simple transition scene to the city? The set-up suggests something the PCs need to do to find and travel to their destination (at a minimum with the possibility of opening a narrative lock as well). Th PCs may be fixated on gettig to the city. The players may want to get to the city, but the set-up doesn't get them there. There are still hoops to jump or camels to barter for.

No, I'm right there with you. An NPC explicitly conveys a "swingy" outcome, laden with margin of error, inherent to some resource that he deploys for you to further your ends.

1 - Is this ominous swingy outcome just color to accommodate the genre conventions of the table? If so, then sure, fast-forward away to the next "charged with relevant conflict" Action Scene; relevant here meaning "intimately coupled with the thematic conflict to be resolved"...not just "an obstacle to reach the resolution of the thematic conflict to be resolved." Outsiders to your table preferences might observe "uhhh, why did the mysterious gent portend a swingy outcome when, in the metagame, we know for certain that the swinginess is irrelevant to resource ablation and/or won't be mechanically resolved...it seems a bit...errr...<pardon me but I can't think of any other way to put this> masturbatory?" To which you might answer "because its cool and colors our running narrative with the right genre-relevant material." And that divide will never be bridged.

OR

2 - Is the system itself and the table agenda predicated upon swingy resource schemes and the strategic cost-benefit analysis associated with them? Is this to be mechanically resolved with the working assumption that the table then chooses to deal with the (possibly negative) consequences of pressing the candy-red-button? Alternatively, is the table ok with GM force candy-red-buttons (eg if you choose the candy-red-button of the mysterious gent then the GM has the dictatorial authority to circumvent mechanical resolution and impose negative consequences). If either are true then the players should be ready to resolve the negative consequences, as an Action Scene, should/when they manifest.

Hussar's problem becomes manifest when you have 1 and 2 (either table agenda, system, or technique) present at the same table at the same time.

 

[chaochou]

And yet, that's what Beliefs do. They give the players the means to say what matters, now, here, this session, and nothing in BW says the GM can say otherwise.

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

BW: Beliefs in play;

"Stating a belief for a peasant that 'I'm the true king of this land' does not make it factual in the game. But getting it out in the open you are letting the other players know that you want situations revolving around that theme - a mad peasant rebel rising to challenge the established order.

You might not succeed, but playing out that struggle is what the game is all about".

Beliefs are the player saying what matters. Playing what matters is what the game is all about. Hence playing beliefs is what the game is all about.

But, yeah, you know what beliefs are supposed to do. You said so over in the BW thread. Here's what you said:

It would be pretty easy to port into D&D. A Belief would give you like a +1 bonus on all rolls when you were in a scene that tested your beliefs and acting in direct accordance to your beliefs. I'd give you a penalty like say -4 when violating your belief, but then after 24 hours I'd let you take a new Belief if you wanted.

They allow the DM to decide whether to give a player a +1 or a -4 on their roll. Funny, another lever of control. Authority being used in a dictatorial manner? People can decide for themselves.

But on the upside they let the player drive the action, dictate what matters, establish the scenes that are important now, right Celebrim? "There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin."

As someone who has actually played BW said in response:

There would definitely not be any sort of penalty for violating one. That's just insane - it defeats the whole purpose of playing the game - and makes me think that you don't understand how BW plays at all.

But here you are claiming to understand Beliefs, while saying that my explanation, entirely consistent with what BW says in black and white, is not merely inaccurate, but so wrong it's incomprehensible. What a hoot! And I've played Burning Wheel. Run scene-framed games.

But no, apparently the people who play successfully have it all wrong, while you - with nothing on the record to indicate any experience at all - are unquestionably correct merely by virtue of saying so. Rinse and repeat for scene-framing. And player authority.

Hilarious, but it also means this 'discussion' is futile.

So, I can only bid you adieu and happy gaming.

 

[Celebrim]

Hilarious, but it also means this 'discussion' is futile.

Given that you seem to have a problem responding to anything I actually said, probably so.

But anyway, about that other thread. I wasn't saying how BW worked. I was saying how I would make them work in D&D. I believe my mechanic is reasonable and well accords with similar definable traits in other systems that lean narrativist (Dogs In The Vineyard, Monsters and other Childish Things, FATE, etc. even Call on Traits in BW) where stating something about your character, like "I'm the toughest man in these parts." is mechanically powerful and can be called on to influence the course of play. The reason for the mechanical tie in is that D&D tends to be a very crunchy system, and I didn't want to get into XP awards or other sorts of tie ins for playing to belief. In particular, since D&D tends to have a gamist mindset that may not be part of established BW play, I thought it important to attach mechanical motivation to those beliefs lest they be ignored. In other words, one of the problems D&D already has is that player will establish a character and play it entirely in pawn stance with the actual player motivation not being exploration of belief, but simply gaining some story advantage. What I wanted to do was allow the D&D version of beliefs to override this and make it mechanically motivating to reward actor stance in play (and author stance in character creation) in the hopes of driving the game toward making it be about the beliefs. BW on the other hand presumes player desire to act on their beliefs. If a player in BW isn't interested in engaging with their beliefs, there really isn't a recovery mechanism to BW (well, other than the DM erasing beliefs, saddling the player with unwanted traits, and deciding not to award Artha). In D&D, if the player isn't engaging with their beliefs, then there is still hack n' slash, etc.

Do you think it's good design to port in a mechanic from one system to another without considering the differences between the system?

As for beliefs "letting the player drive the action, dictate what matters, and establish the scenes that are important", I have player backstory for that which lets the player signal to me the sort of things that they are interested in, as well as a questionare I typically hand out before planning a campaign where I ask the players what sort of game that they are interested in playing. If they all agree, "We want to play pirates.", then we'll play pirates. If everyone hates adventure paths, then I'll avoid having a "save the world" sort of plot that demands player attention. If on the other hand everyone loves adventure paths, then I'll have a primary "your corner of the world is threatened" plot that can continually drive forward action without heavy player proactivity.

The problem I'm having is I'm beginning to feel from peoples descriptions of play is that beliefs in Burning Wheel end up granting players less influence over the game and game world than the way I normally play. I again refer you to the points I raised about the adventure burner and the discussion of the 'difficulty' in adjudicating 'Say yes' and the explicit authorial control BW grants the GM to establish scenes and decide whether those scenes are relevant to belief and therefore must be tested mechanically. In other words, if a player says, "Why am I hanging on this ledge above a chasm? This doesn't relate to my beliefs.", it seems pretty clear that the GM is presumed to be able to say, "Well, you want to prove you are the true king, right? And on the other side of this narrow ledge is the tomb of the ancient kings, where maybe you can find some proof of your ancestory? So, roll the dice or fall." I've seen no sign whatsoever in the BW rules that Beliefs give the players scene framing power at all. The seem to serve only as signals. They don't let the player direct the story, and notable they don't provide the player with the ability to use his narrative force (that is the defined results of his mechanical propositions) to obtain the outcomes the player wants. And if only signals, then the fact that you have just a few sentences in which to make your signals is pretty limiting.

You make fun of me for not understanding BW because I thought it would be cool to provide a mechanical benefit for playing to belief, but I was looking at it as a player - "This ledge is in the way of me getting to the tombs of the ancient kings. But, lo, my belief carries me across the ledge." - is far more empowering than simply signaling to the DM that I want my beliefs challenged.

In fact, I already have this mechanism and in a far more powerful form than the '+1 bonus'. It's called Destiny Points. Destiny points let you do lots of cool things, but they are hard to replenish. One way to replenish them is accomplish one of your declared character objectives. So, if one of your declared character objectives is, "Keep the world safe from necromancers" or "Protect the innocent" or "Serve the Temple of Aravar", then when you achieve that goal by killing a necromancers, saving the lives of innocent bystanders, or fulfilling a quest given you by the High Priest of Aravar you get a destiny point. It means if you are being proactive and pursuing the things you say you want to do, then you are much less likely to fail. And it also means that I'm motivated to make the oppurtunies to achieve these objectives. Now, granted, objectives aren't the same as beliefs but they do share with a well designed belief in BW that they motivate the player to action.

Beliefs are the player saying what matters. Playing what matters is what the game is all about. Hence playing beliefs is what the game is all about.

Ok, that's nice. But looking at your your own example, "Stating a belief for a peasant that 'I'm the true king of this land' does not make it factual in the game.", that means that the player can't really say what the game is about. So yeah, while you can say that the player gets to drive the action and dictate what matters, the truth is not so much. If your belief is, "I'm the true king of this land.", and the GM's belief is, "That's ridiculous.", you may find the game playing out more like Don Quixote when what you really wanted was Morte D'Arthur. So while you can meekly accept the idea that the game is about, "a mad peasant rebel rising to challenge the established order", you can't really say what the game is about nor force it to be the story you want it to be. Where as in my game, you can say in your backstory, "I AM true king of this land.", and you are. And moreover, if your objective was, "Regain my rightful throne", every time you do something that advances that agenda - like convince someone you are - you are owed a Destiny Point which can then use to secure your character and advance his agenda.

And that's the honest truth. I haven't actually had a player set up there backstory as, "I am the true king of this land." yet, but I did have a player set up the backstory, "I'm the daughter of the High Thane of the Dwarf Kingdoms" and I said, "Ok, you are."

UPDATE: Actually, it occurs to me that I have gone farther than that. I recently had a player submit a backstory that called for them to be the mortal descendent of a diety that had hitherto in the game univere celibate, and I approved that - essentially altering the mythology around one of the universe's major dieties. And the player had that idea because it's explicitly called out in my rules as a possibility. Beliefs are pathetic in their demands on the universe in comparison.

 

[N'raac]

Another question is, should the DM hand-wave punishments designed to prevent use of the spell in the first place (plane shift, teleport, etc)? Those punishments are built into the game system (and few remain from the 1e and 2e era into 3e). Shouldn't the hand-waving be done before the spell is used and not on the effects of the spell? If my players (and probably myself) don't want to arrive 100 miles in the desert away from the goal, then shouldn't edit the spell, not hand-wave the effect? It's worse when a particular game requires the players teleport or plane shift to even begin the game and then leave it up to random chance whether they arrive closer or further from the destination. I don't know.

Agreed - it's not fair to the players to decide that the negative effects of the spells will be handwave when the GM wishes to do so, then have them come back at some later time. Change the rule for once and for all.

 

[Nagol]

Agreed - it's not fair to the players to decide that the negative effects of the spells will be handwave when the GM wishes to do so, then have them come back at some later time. Change the rule for once and for all.

Or, if the spell is serving a narrative purpose don't have the effects be random -- the PCs appear 8 miles from their destination -- how lucky!

 

[Nagol]

That reminds me of an adventure from 1e. The PCs were retained to go to Hades and rescue Artemis from the clutches of Hades' chair of forgetfulness.

The PCs discovered the gods' will had material effect when the magic-user cast Fireball and I said before he could roll the dice "11d6, that's 66 hp and they all fail their save" -- neither Hecate nor Tyche were amused by Artemis' situation.

 

[Celebrim]

Or, if the spell is serving a narrative purpose don't have the effects be random -- the PCs appear 8 miles from their destination -- how lucky!

In the original 'Centipede' scenario, this is the way the module is actually written. You don't appear at a random spot. You appear where X marks the spot, 110 miles from your first presumed destination. It's also worth noting that while I do think the scenario as written is weak (played strictly to text the group will average 20+ random encounters over the course of their travels, which suggests either slog or from some other hints in the text that the players are expected to devise short cuts at some point), there is actually a dramatic narrative purpose to the random encounters. The players have a capable guide, who cannot participate in the three main challenges the PC have to face, but who will willingly aid the players against wandering encounters. I won't go too heavily into spoilers, but the players are meant to build a relationship with the guide and the best way to do that IME is have the NPC be truly helpful. Players rarely respect an NPC that can't pull his own weight and provide resources, and if you give the NPC no scene in which to provide those resources many latter events in the main story - the party that Hussar presumably cares about and is hurrying toward - don't actually and literally challenge player beliefs as strongly as they are intended to. Now, I'm not saying 20 random uninteresting encounters is the best way to achieve that, but I can see how the writer may have thought having an NPC fight alongside you for days and overcome real difficulties would have built the relationship in important ways.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat

I'm still struggling with why the desert shouldn't be framed as an action sene when it was

1. a scene deliberately sought out by the players (they used an ability with this destination as a possible random result without mitigation prepared to continue the transition),
2. the group did not deploy resources to transition (siummoning a centipede engages the scene and presents assets/aspects for the group to use whilst in it -- it is not the equivalent of teleport or other forms for fast non-interceptable travel),
3. the game engine includes such forms of action in the basic ruleset (defined skills such as Ride (Exotic mount), wilderness encounters, weather, other hazards),
4. the area being traversed is unknown and novel to the PCs.

Its not my contention that the desert shouldn't be framed as an action scene. Its my contention that "desert as action scene" isn't the only legitimate way to handle it. Some systems expect the desert/badlands to be a transition scene or explicitly hard-code PC resources or flags to "queue transition scene". Some groups, even if their systems disagree with the handling (eg the system is organized around the premises of (i) deployable strategic resources that require "extra-scene" cost benefit analysis, (ii) overland travel modes presupposing serial world exploration, (iii) objective task resolution as the engine for world interaction rather than conflict resolution) will hand-wave things via social accord and turn "would-be action scenes" into mere color.

I can't know it, but again, my guess is that Hussar was playing at a table with either system, techniques, players or GM interests that were not in lockstep with his own. Whether he was majority or a minority I have no idea. I've never had any interests in labeling Hussar's agenda here selfish or immature or jerky. I don't care about that, I don't find it interesting, and I don't know how we would even get to the bottom of it without interviewing the other players and having full knowledge of the system played, the techniques deployed and the overall table agenda (assuming it isn't utterly incoherent...which is probably an "assumption too far"). I'm just interested in speaking to a how a group/system would see it as a Transition Scene and why. I'm not coming down from Mount Sinai with etched stone tablets reading; "DESERT SCENES, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE, MUST BE TRANSITION SCENES."


I'm a big fan of exploration so I wouldn't advocate for using all exploration as transition scenes.