Hidden backstory is stuff given fictional positioning that the players aren’t yet aware of.
This post was illustrative to me. It seems some would find the concept of hidden fictional positioning anathema. It's a GM trump card (queue the GM Tyrancy) that cancels player agency. But I get your points below.
This became an ‘apparent’ problem because of the important papers in the safe. There are some important papers in the safe and the character tries to pick the lock, is successful and opens the safe. Yet there are no papers to be found. (cue the tears)
Everybody who has ever had a problem with that has massively misdiagnosed why their play was dysfunctional. So they do the really silly thing and try and fix it at the mechanical level.
A common resolution system break down goes as follows. There is an intent (get the papers from the safe), there is an execution (use my lock picking tools to open the safe). And there is an effect (the safe is open and I can get the papers)
That seems to solve the problem because now we’re rolling for intent, not for execution. The GM can no longer welch us.
I was trying to think of a model in fiction where what the player narratively asserts becomes the new reality. "The safe must have the needed papers" and the thought that springs to mind is that book The Secret where you will things into reality. And that seems to be where traditional and narrative focuses diverge. The narrative reality created by the player must be respected and cannot be countermanded by any "objective" reality ("objective" as defined by the GM's notes or an event in the published scenario or the setting's "reality.").
The narrative flow is constantly changing and evolving based on story inputs created by everyone at the table, but it becomes more like Joyce or Faulkner style stream-of-consciousness fiction, and the story might not have a traditional end unless everyone agrees on the way to wrap it up.
Whereas a traditional flow is the more well-recognized story structure "authored" or at least framed by a singular GM, and everyone works to play within or expand that structure. It would have a defined beginning, middle and end, however, and possibly events that players don't control.
I could see how someone who likes a particular style might be frustrated by the other style, and I could see some liking both. Some might not like the "amorphous" feel of a stream-of-consciousness session, and some might feel imposed on by the author's "structure."
This basically leads to ‘solving’ the tyrant GM problem by ignoring the actual problem and then destroying the fundamentals of the medium. You’re ignoring fictional positioning and using the resolution system as a back story generator. Everybody is having great fun, lots of hi-jinx. The GM can even get in on the action. You failed a roll so goons kick down the door. The resolution system is at this point just giving narrative control. Everyone is rolling to force their version of events into being. You can see this most clearly by how people use ‘on a miss’ in PbtA games.
Or the other version. You roll for intent and it has be situationally binding. You have to meet the princess which means you have to skip straight to meeting her. It basically cuts the scene (stops escalation as well but that’s almost incidental at this point).
If you don’t immediately cut the scene you have to try and railroad each other towards a preset destination. Nothing of consequence can happen in case it messes up the stakes, that you’ve earned by rolling for them.
If you’re familiar with Apocalypse World you’ll see people who think intent is binding get really confused by the seize by force move. They’ve rolled for it and yet the GM can immediately take it away again.
Anyway on the creative level what starts to happen is that there’s just a push and pull over the course of the story. The fundamental dysfunction hasn’t been fixed and if you’re not 17 then you’ll almost inevitably have to change the role of the GM. Or in games without a GM everybody becomes the GM.
This new GM ends up being a facilitator of the players. They’re not actually answering premise because their job is to challenge the players characters. They have the same (or similar) relationship to the players as Brennan Lee-Mulligan or Matt Mercer has to their players.
So that’s my issue.
One thing I would point out here is that my definition of a Tyrant GM would be one who is constantly and actively making moves to counter or nullify player agency to the point where the player feels absolutely powerless.
Others' threshold might be much lower. To the point where any hidden fictional positioning, or GM authored/scenario event not initiated by a player is tyrannical.
I guess everyone needs to decide where they stand on that spectrum and find players of like mind.
Now I’ll talk about what the original dysfunction was/is for anyone who finds my ranting at all compelling.
Yeah it is kind of the GM having story control but probably not in the way most people think.
The basic act of role-playing is that I say something, you listen to what I say and use that when you say something in return.
Creative agenda pay off is the shared social reward between two people. If there’s an agenda mismatch. Say you open the safe and there’s nothing there and the GM grins at you like you’re an idiot (which is rewarding for both people with a G agenda). Then if you’re playing for story you’ll be really confused as to what’s going on. There is no communal reward, you just do actually feel like an idiot. If the GM is exerting plot control as well. You’re already in the bad creative relationship I outline above, just a different version of it. The GM is still and always will be a tyrant but now you have system tools to wield against them.
So what should the relationship look like?
You’re both interested in where the fiction leads by fundamentally disinvesting your control of it. You shouldn't want to meet the princess (as author), it should simply not be a concern. As audience, yeah, you can want your character to meet her all you want. In fact play is a failure if you aren’t emotionally invested in certain things happening. That just has no impact at all (or very minimal) in how you utilise the fiction and system. That’s both of you. Even in a gmless game that should be the attitude. As author you do not care.
So what do you do as author? Well you make creative decisions in line with what has been established with no regard to the outcome. One common way of doing this is known colloquially as ‘Doing what my character does’ or as GM ‘doing what my character does (as NPC)’ (I'm dumbing this down but that’s the basic gist of it)
Then we’re both in this together, looking at how the game fictions internal logic and causality drive play.
So back to the safe. You open it and there’s nothing there. Your character might be annoyed, you might be annoyed on behalf of your character. But if you’re annoyed as a player, you’re doing it wrong.
I think it comes back to how everyone at the table wants to run things. If all agree that James Joyce is the way to go, then it's all good. But everyone must agree at the outset.