The roots of 4e exposed?

OK, so how would this game look like in practice? You have your Players all set ready to go and then what happens next in a Story Now game?

The GM describes the initial scene. I mean, each system often has a specific way for this to work, but in a sort of generalized Story Now concept the players might express some sort of 'kickers', things that served as a catalyst to making them become PCs (IE heroes or whatnot vs homebodies). The GM could then frame a scene around that. Barring that sort of thing, then a judicious reading of the PC's backgrounds, build choices, etc. should provide a thread to pick up. Some games simply have pervasive genre conventions (A Cthulhu Mythos based game would start with some outre event, or perhaps some more mundane forewarning, a supers game could simply start with a villain appearing on the scene to spoil someone's day).

You would NOT start a Story Now game with 'the PCs are in a tavern having a drink' (unless some relevant event was about to take place there). You generally avoid 'passive' situations, though I have codified them into my game as 'interludes', which are pretty handy (4e DMG2 suggests something similar).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zeromaru X

Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover
I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Thread, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, 'Oh Heavens, not this debate again.'"
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.

They aren't opposite, really. Just very different. If you wanted to, you could combine them into a style that is different than either one. For instance, you could create a town, but have a rule where each player gets to create one building and 2 NPCs to give the town a different flavor from pure world building. Or you could allow the players to each, once per session, add or remove an encounter of their choice. The rest of the encounters would be yours. There are many ways to mix the two styles together to create a game that might be enjoyable to all of you. It all depends on what your preferences are.
 


Zeromaru X

Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover
"I felt a great disturbance in the Thread, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, 'Oh Heavens, not this debate again.'"

Oh, not a debate at all. I' m just trying to understand this "Story Now" concept, at it's the first time I've read about it.

They aren't opposite, really. Just very different. If you wanted to, you could combine them into a style that is different than either one. For instance, you could create a town, but have a rule where each player gets to create one building and 2 NPCs to give the town a different flavor from pure world building. Or you could allow the players to each, once per session, add or remove an encounter of their choice. The rest of the encounters would be yours. There are many ways to mix the two styles together to create a game that might be enjoyable to all of you. It all depends on what your preferences are.

That would be an intersting idea. It would be like some sort of shared world-building.
 


pemerton

Legend
I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.
This blog on "no myth" sets out what is probably the typical way of playing "story now". The emphasis is on characters' dramatic needs, and the framing of situations to speak to those needs and generate drama out of them. I think this is what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has in mind as a default or standard approach.

Here's a blog by Ron Edwards on the use of setting in "story now" play. It emphasises the setting as something that is shared across all the players at the table, and is the source of situation and theme. The way that I run 4e has hints of this, because of the role of the default cosmology, but Edwards is envisaging something a bit more involved and intricate, with Glorantha-focused HeroWars/Quest as his model.

What's central to what Edwards is envisaging is not shared authorship of the setting, but shared engagement with it as a source of theme and situation:

One concern that crops up a lot for playing this way is how expert people have to be even to get started. Although not everyone must be expert, certainly no one can be ignorant either. But people are understandably wary of game texts with extraordinary page counts concerning setting information.

In my experience, the solution begins with a single person choosing the location, at least when the group is playing the game for the first time. He or she should provide a brief but inspirational handout which summarizes the entire setting, focusing on colorful and thematic points; if the opening text of the game book provides this, a quick photocopy will do. . . .

After that point, everyone at the table may restrict his or her attention to the exact location that’s been chosen. Although the organizing person should provide more detailed handouts or photocopies as an ongoing feature of preparation, everyone else must definitely be oriented and enthusiastic concerning the prevailing thematic crises that are made concrete in setting terms. The good news is that full expertise isn’t necessary to achieve this, and in my experience, asking and answering questions about the options for the geographically-limited character creation usually generate sufficient knowledge for the first sessions of play.​

It's quite different from exploring the GM's setting in the traditional sense, but also different from "setting as mere backdrop" which is how GH works in my Burning Wheel game, or how "the universe" works in my Traveller game.
 

I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.

I don't actually think that Story Now is necessarily opposed to some elements that are often considered 'world building' to at least a degree. Thus, for example, even fairly staunch advocates of Story Now 'Zero Myth' play would still say that you need a solid idea of the genre, and its good to understand the tone and general sort of content that will go into a game. At a slightly less far out position you could also simply take up a type of game where the fundamental questions are mostly determined by the genre conventions and similar things.

The oft-cited Cthulhu Mythos example works well here. We all know what the primary geography is in the CM world, its an early-20th-Century Earth with certain locations which form focal points, Eastern Massachusetts and NE, certain regions in the South Pacific, remote Antarctica, the Arabian Desert, etc. What exists in these places is fairly established, as a general thing. The creatures which are likely to be encountered, Great Old Ones, Elder Gods, the Great Race of Yith, Fungi from Yuggoth, Deep Ones, shoggoths, etc. are all pretty well known quantities in terms of how they function in the milieu. So a lot of 'world' is already 'built' here. This would also be the case in a Middle Earth, a Marvel Universe, etc.

Even if the world is less fixed by the conventions of a specific genre niche, Story Now is certainly not going to be hurt by using some pre-existing overall setting. You can do it in WoG as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has, or FR, or 4e's PoL world. The key element is that there's no fixed story. It is only 'world now' to the extent that overly specifying the world beforehand can create constraints which are then hard to break when the story would be better for it. Different people feel that there are different ideal balances. Dungeon World wants 'a map with holes in it', zero myth advocates for no map at all.

What is unlikely to be considered Story Now is a game where you have a whole bunch of encounter areas that are already set up with pre-ordained elements which focus on things that their author wanted to have in them. The things that show up in the Story Now story are things that the players have indicated are supposed to show up, could show up, or would take the story in the direction they want if they did show up.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That would be an intersting idea. It would be like some sort of shared world-building.
Think of all the different aspects that there are to world building. Then all the different ways you could share that world building. There's a staggering amount of variety that you could come up with.
 

Remove ads

Top