|
Post by DeWitt on Sept 10, 2016 0:38:14 GMT -5
It is the referee's responsibility to decide what happens. Books can give him tools to help him decide if he wants to use them, but they're not required. The mechanics are in place to remove DM fiat from the game, not to support it. Contemporary story making "games" do the latter and players can't game them to achieve objectives as a result. (i.e. actually play them as games). I disagree with you on the part quoted. The millions of mechanics were never written as tools to create a narrative. Look at contemporary story making rules, that's what tools of that type would look like. All of the books in the hobby to which D&D belongs, gaming, have actual game mechanics that appear as game mechanics because they are for building a game system prior to play. The game is what it is so we can score points by manipulating its mathematical design, not create a story. I have sympathy for how you've been treated ITT. I feel it's important to mention that Burning Wheel, which is called a storygame by osr peeps, was a response to fiat. Luke Crane designed the GM role so that there was no chance of running Burning Wheel by fiat. I agree that is what a DM ought not to do but there was enough of it happening for a game to be designed in response.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 10, 2016 1:25:03 GMT -5
The mechanics are in place to remove DM fiat from the game, not to support it. Contemporary story making "games" do the latter and players can't game them to achieve objectives as a result. (i.e. actually play them as games). I disagree with you on the part quoted. The millions of mechanics were never written as tools to create a narrative. Look at contemporary story making rules, that's what tools of that type would look like. All of the books in the hobby to which D&D belongs, gaming, have actual game mechanics that appear as game mechanics because they are for building a game system prior to play. The game is what it is so we can score points by manipulating its mathematical design, not create a story. I have sympathy for how you've been treated ITT. I feel it's important to mention that Burning Wheel, which is called a storygame by osr peeps, was a response to fiat. Luke Crane designed the GM role so that there was no chance of running Burning Wheel by fiat. I agree that is what a DM ought not to do but there was enough of it happening for a game to be designed in response. DeWitt I found the following about Burning Wheel, which I am not familiar with: As described, I would not call this a story game, since it says it is designed to exclude the two main features of a story game - it is not pre-scripted and it is designed to prevent railroads. Story as used in relationship to OD&D is the record of what happened in the game and when you tell the story of what happened is when the story appears. It is says the story develops organically which I take to mean that the players actions and responses to the problems and challenges generate the story. In other words this sounds quite a bit like OD&D only with a different focus of what is being tested. DM fiat as used in OD&D is not pre-scripting and it is not railroading, (that IMO is just bad DMing not DM fiat) it is the DM having control of his game world to create the problems and challenges that test the players. The part I look at as different from OD&D is the game mechanics described as "pre-negotiated roll or scene outcomes, the 'Let it Ride' rule, absence of hidden information". This is the part that IMO appears to be a fun killer and by putting the pre-scripting and the railroading back in now it is a story game because it sounds like everything is pre-determined after all. If as a player I already know everything (no hidden information), then there is no exploration and no mystery. IME OD&D is exploring and investigating mysteries and this game is apparently absent anything to explore or investigate, since the player gets 100% of everything there is to know up front(no hidden information). The next part is the "pre-negotiated roll or scene outcomes" and this seems to be where the game puts the pre-scripting/railroad back into the game by agreeing up front how every encounter is going to be resolved (i.e. it appears to be saying that all chance and all risk is removed. That sounds rather boring to me. I play the game and ref the game for the chance and risk involved - I like not knowing what will happen and we play the game to find out. If you agree how something is going to happen before you play it out, then why bother to play it out when everyone already knows what happens? I am not sure what they mean by the "Let it Ride" rule. I am not sure what to think about this game, but I would like to know more. Parts of it sound really fun other parts sound like they created what they said they were getting away from. It sounds like instead of for example one ref and 10 players, instead you have 11 refs and no players. If you have played this game, please tell me what it is that I am missing or is this how it works?
|
|
|
Post by DeWitt on Sept 10, 2016 3:18:25 GMT -5
I have sympathy for how you've been treated ITT. I feel it's important to mention that Burning Wheel, which is called a storygame by osr peeps, was a response to fiat. Luke Crane designed the GM role so that there was no chance of running Burning Wheel by fiat. I agree that is what a DM ought not to do but there was enough of it happening for a game to be designed in response. DeWitt I found the following about Burning Wheel, which I am not familiar with: As described, I would not call this a story game, since it says it is designed to exclude the two main features of a story game - it is not pre-scripted and it is designed to prevent railroads. Story as used in relationship to OD&D is the record of what happened in the game and when you tell the story of what happened is when the story appears. It is says the story develops organically which I take to mean that the players actions and responses to the problems and challenges generate the story. In other words this sounds quite a bit like OD&D only with a different focus of what is being tested. DM fiat as used in OD&D is not pre-scripting and it is not railroading, (that IMO is just bad DMing not DM fiat) it is the DM having control of his game world to create the problems and challenges that test the players. The part I look at as different from OD&D is the game mechanics described as "pre-negotiated roll or scene outcomes, the 'Let it Ride' rule, absence of hidden information". This is the part that IMO appears to be a fun killer and by putting the pre-scripting and the railroading back in now it is a story game because it sounds like everything is pre-determined after all. If as a player I already know everything (no hidden information), then there is no exploration and no mystery. IME OD&D is exploring and investigating mysteries and this game is apparently absent anything to explore or investigate, since the player gets 100% of everything there is to know up front(no hidden information). The next part is the "pre-negotiated roll or scene outcomes" and this seems to be where the game puts the pre-scripting/railroad back into the game by agreeing up front how every encounter is going to be resolved (i.e. it appears to be saying that all chance and all risk is removed. That sounds rather boring to me. I play the game and ref the game for the chance and risk involved - I like not knowing what will happen and we play the game to find out. If you agree how something is going to happen before you play it out, then why bother to play it out when everyone already knows what happens? I am not sure what they mean by the "Let it Ride" rule. I am not sure what to think about this game, but I would like to know more. Parts of it sound really fun other parts sound like they created what they said they were getting away from. It sounds like instead of for example one ref and 10 players, instead you have 11 refs and no players. If you have played this game, please tell me what it is that I am missing or is this how it works? Keep in mind that i was born after 2nd edition's release. My thoughts are very far removed from the experience ITT. I'm not sure what you're asking. My point was that the GM has rules that they're beholden to. No fiat at a BW table. Answering your post as best I can: Knowing before hand is one way of interpreting the rule. Having 11 GMs is another valid interpretation. The goal was to turn the GM into another player, after all. How, why, and the outcome of using any rule would depend on the table. As per texts, the way these rules are interpreted and used comes from a reader/player response. I'm not sure what else to add. Your post is a valid way to see those kinds of rules.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 10, 2016 6:23:14 GMT -5
Oh for Pete's sake, this is still dragging on? Fiat is not the same as taken from Gary's quote in OD&D: "New details can be added and old “Laws” altered so as to provide continually new and different situations.” -- E. Gary Gygax, Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons, 1974. There is no restriction on WHEN these "LAWS" (note that he uses the quotes to signify, as well, that there are essentially no steadfast laws, they are guides) are initiated. There is a very good reason for this, of course. There is no way that a set of rules or laws can be instituted to cover all of the infinite play possibilities that can manifest from player interface with a Fantasy world of make believe. We proved that in the play-tests of D&D ad infinitum as we were in fact building the rules as a backwash of the play-tests.So, even during the play-tests we had players doing things that were not covered by the rules, so Gary and I had to make up systems, on the fly, to adjudicate those circumstances. Sometimes these contravened or amended existing rules due to the input variability of the player exceeding the initial condition ranges of an existing rule. Sometimes it added a new rule.
I see the difficulty of those here who don't understand this as a closed system = closed mind. It's latter day gamers coming back to simpler mechanics of D&D, but the latter is only part of the equation. You also return to an open philosophy. Now you can certainly choose to reject that philosophy as extolled by the game's pioneers and ancient day players, but then that becomes "Your Version" as Gary also noted:
...My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them... -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975.
I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign should be a "variant", and there is no "official interpretation" from me or anyone else. -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975.
So you see, argument from either side in this issue is fruitless. It's what a person wants and how they shape their game to be what they want it to be. There is no standard, and I wish people, especially closed system establishment folks, would get this rather than projecting the obtuse angle that if you don't do it "X, Y, Z" way then it is not what THEY deem to be a game, an RPG, sanity, whatever. Yet, I play the same way I've played since 1972, the general way that Arneson and his group, Gary Gygax and our group played, and you know what? It works, and I dare say to date that it works in more non-exclusionary ways due to its expansive situational latitude and imaginative breadth for exploring the unknown outside of boxed in positions, rules, formats and unalterable structure, the latter cases which reduce and in some cases eliminate that unbounded exploration.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 10, 2016 7:00:09 GMT -5
Thanks DeWitt I was just checking to see that I was not completely misunderstanding the thrust of what Burning Wheel is about. It appears to me that the DM Fiat of single referree (used in the negative sense for a bad referee) that Burning Wheel was trying to get away from was exchanged for (to use the example) 11 bad referee negotiating before each occurrence in the game the DM Fiat for each, so that at all times there is nothing hidden from anyone at the table and that at all times everyone knows everything. If that is the case I must confess that I don't see the point of playing at all, since everything that I find interesting is removed from the game completely at that point. Of course, I have never encountered the abusive DM that so many seem to fear and if I did, I would simply leave and find another game or start my own. However, if you took OD&D and wanted to play it with this specific focus - "The GM is encouraged to create problems and challenges that specifically probe and test the Beliefs and Instincts of the PCs, and as a consequence characters frequently undergo significant change in their goals and attitudes over time." I can see that as being fun if that is of interest to you. I have found that playing OD&D often results in characters undergoing change of goals and attitudes even though that is not the focus, merely as an outgrowth of having a living campaign world for them to adventure in. robkuntz I understand that what we do as referees in OD&D is not DM Fiat. Not everyone does as you point out. I, however, love to "wing it" and my players routinely thank me at the end of the game and ask when are we getting together again. I was merely exploring briefly an aside about Burning Wheel that DeWitt brought up as I had not heard about that game before.
|
|
|
Post by DeWitt on Sept 10, 2016 7:32:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're getting at robkuntz. The point was there was enough fiat in d&d to spark a response. I feel you're taking a kind of roll and making it the only roll, Admin Pete. Burning Wheel isn't played like that description.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 10, 2016 7:33:39 GMT -5
"robkuntz I understand that what we do as referees in OD&D is not DM Fiat. Not everyone does as you point out. I, however, love to "wing it" and my players routinely thank me at the end of the game and ask when are we getting together again. I was merely exploring briefly an aside about Burning Wheel that otto brought up as I had not heard about that game before. "
I was not singling you out due to winging it at all but addressing the overall concern of those in opposition to the general subject as elucidated through the term "Fiat". DM fiat can and will be used for rules adjudication as well and more often. The DM is the omniscient system and thus it is not fiat, it is based upon inputs to outputs arriving at determinations. I was not concerned with the other side of winging it as that is an understood. Again I'll go back to structure. What is the goal of a Dungeon Crawl? If I just place a group of orcs in a dungeon and we open the door and capture one of them and the DM starts rolling dice (to determine the orc's disposition and knowledge we are essentially adding rules (systems not overtly inherent to the game rules per se) and winging it at the same time. Where is the line drawn in the sand? Well, it's drawn where one wants it to be drawn, PERIOD. Closed system folks use linear-aligned thinking because in their minds there is a consequential sequence that must add up. However, granular open systems and circumstance inherent to an infinite realm of possibilities resulting through interacting with a Fantasy world do not A, B, C add up. They have richer and less reducible lines of progression. Once again, wasn't referring to you or your thoughts but the overall idea that fiat in either case is a negative position.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 10, 2016 7:50:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're getting at robkuntz . The point was there was enough fiat in d&d to spark a response. I feel you're taking a kind of roll and making it the only roll, Admin Pete . Burning Wheel isn't played like that description. The idea of fiat, unsaid or not, is part and parcel of this ongoing debate. I am referring to much that occurs before your posts, but if they fit or not, okay. I have summarized my views in many other ways outside of the use of the term that you are arguing sub-textually. This is summarized in my posts that the idea that we would argue about an infinitely sculptable game wherein we can reinforce our own positions through choice (i.e., fiat) is rather silly to me to begin with and from both sides of the fence. If I CAN and, if others CAN, then what I do in relation to what they do has no common set of terms but can be individualized from singular POVs. We come down to taste and not terms: what a term means and how it is applied to one and how that differs in each singularity. We essentially come down to the idea that there is no standard and thus argument, as as been proven to date in this thread, will only reinforce that we all indeed do things differently: by choice or fiat. The application of that choice within any singular game is then not fiat no matter how one applies it contextually thereafter. It is the initial law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2016 8:11:07 GMT -5
This thread is so tedious ... the horse is dead - hell, it's glue from all the beating. Apparently, some people had a bad DM, got their 'special snowflake' feelings hurt, and now they hate D&D.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 10, 2016 8:23:11 GMT -5
Despite the horse being dead, I will drop my 2cp.
I wonder if an analogy to the difference between code (Roman, Napoleanic) Law (where judges are not trusted, but mere administers of a code) and common (English, Commonwealth) Law (where judges are not only trusted but have the power both to set and overturn precedence) might not prove helpful.
I know it helps me explain to folks "rulings not rules." It doesn't mean the game has no shape. It means we are discerning it together. The game exceeds any rule-based definition, like anything truly human.
|
|
|
Post by DeWitt on Sept 10, 2016 8:24:26 GMT -5
robkuntz Hm, there's agreement on terms among many people. I'll refrain from responding to you. Apologies for misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 10, 2016 8:35:16 GMT -5
I feel you're taking a kind of roll and making it the only roll, Admin Pete . Burning Wheel isn't played like that description. That is why I asked for clarification about how Burning Wheel is played, since I am only going by what I could quickly find about it. However, as noted this horse has truly been beaten to death and so perhaps we should move on to a new topic.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 10, 2016 8:36:31 GMT -5
robkuntz Hm, there's agreement on terms among many people. I'll refrain from responding to you. Apologies for misunderstanding. My position stands, of course. H&W and others here have been arguing terms, which are actually tastes and affinities, as truths. Since truths will vary due to taste and affinity in every case there can be no standard set of terms that are co-equal in the argument but only for singular aspects of applied meanings in each case. "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it" - Karl Popper
|
|
|
Post by DeWitt on Sept 10, 2016 8:42:15 GMT -5
I feel you're taking a kind of roll and making it the only roll, Admin Pete . Burning Wheel isn't played like that description. That is why I asked for clarification about how Burning Wheel is played, since I am only going by what I could quickly find about it. However, as noted this horse has truly been beaten to death and so perhaps we should move on to a new topic. Sure, no problem.
|
|