D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Oofta]

I did no such thing. I pointed out how the difference between your game and other people's games might not be as big as you think.

D'oh! I went back, I misunderstood. Personally I wouldn't ask people during the game to fill in blanks, but that's just me. I don't think it hurts the game if everyone is okay with it.

 

[Faolyn]

That depends on the system.

In AW, as per what I posted just upthread of this, one of the principles is for the GM to say what their prep demands, and to treat it as binding. The point of this principle, as I understand it, is to help ensure that "the unwelcome and unwanted" (terms used by Baker, as per the OP of the current "rules " thread that you've participated in) become part of play. The GM is not permitted to wimp out and change things.

Really? Because I'm looking at Apocalypse World right now, and under MC Agenda, it says, "Everything you say, you should do it to accomplish these three, and no other. It’s not, for instance, your agenda to make the players lose, or to deny them what they want, or to punish them, or to control them, or to get them through your pre-planned storyline (DO NOT pre-plan a storyline, and I’m not <expletive deleted> around)."
(Emphasis mine.)

In Monster of the Week, the book says, "Ask questions and build on the answers" and "You don’t always have to decide what happens."

In Masks, the book says, "You don’t know exactly what will happen over the course of the game. You don’t know who the PCs will become. You don’t know how they’ll change the city. That’s why you’re playing in the first place—because you’re excited to find out! MASKS is a game about change, about young people growing up, about the city reacting and reshaping itself in response to the people within it. Don’t plan on any single course of events coming true—plan only on pushing and prodding the characters and the setting to see what it might become."

In Root, the book says, "Imagine how you would tell a story about something that happened to you in your real life. At the time that the story is happening, you have no idea what exactly will happen next! When it’s all said and done, you can look back on the events, fit them together, and make a real coherent story out of them, but in the moment, who knows what will happen! It’s a bit like that when you’re playing Root: The RPG with the other players, rolling dice and describing what happens: you’re “in the moment” and unsure of what will happen. After the fact, you can look back and fit things together as a coherent story, seemingly planned the whole while…but in the moment? Who knows what will happen! The game will be infinitely stronger if you let yourself be surprised by it, by what the players and characters do, by how the dice roll, and by what happens next. As the GM, you are always trying to be excited about a story whose ultimate outcome and events you don’t know."

In Dungeon World, the book says, "This is how you play to find out what happens. You’re sharing in the fun of finding out how the characters react to and change the world you’re portraying. You’re all participants in a great adventure that’s unfolding. So really, don’t plan too hard. The rules of the game will fight you. It’s fun to see how things unfold, trust us."

So where on earth are you getting the idea that in Apocalypse World, or in PbtA games in general, that the GM can't change things?

 

[Lanefan]

Let's stop there. How does this fit into the principles of BW play, according to which the GM's job is to frame scenes that speak to the player-authored PC concerns (Beliefs, Instincts, etc).

You already seem to be assuming that the GM is at liberty, in terms of the principles of play, to introduce whatever fiction they want without regard to how it speaks to those player-authored concerns.

So the GM's not even allowed to narrate what the PCs see while travelling to town unless it directly affects a player-authored concern that already exists?

Those abandoned farmhouses could be simple scene-setting along with the weather, the condition of the road, and other colour notes. That the players then make in-character (mental or physical) notes that the farms are abandoned and intend to investigate this later tells me the players have just taken a scene element and made it a concern of theirs, where it might never have been otherwise.

Same thing might happen if the GM happens to narrate that the road is in very poor condition. The players might ignore this, or they might instead make fixing that road a concern of their characters; even more so if one of them has something like "I will do good deeds for the community" as a character statement, though I don't think this is necessary

I fail to see a problem.

 

[Faolyn]

RPGs are clearly about creating imaginary things. They may have an imaginary plot where one imaginary event is imagined to follow from another imaginary event, not through actual causation but from the imagining of causation.

What happens when a dragon takes over a floating elven city is whatever I say happens because I imagined it to be that way.

"Imaginary plot"? Like this?

If you decide that what happens in your medieval fantasy game when a dragon takes over an elven flying city is that X-wings come screaming out of the sky and shoot everyone with rainbow candy, then people are going to leave your game in droves.

Somehow, I think that instead of just imagining something without any causal events, you "imagine" a series of logical events that would occur when a dragon takes over a city. You create the fiction of such an event to make sense in the confines of the world's perimeters.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm sorry, but is this you?

Yes? And? Have you read their posts? They literally have said they don't understand what I mean when I use words like "PC" and "player," that they can't extrapolate my meaning from what I wrote.

 

[Aldarc]

D'oh! I went back, I misunderstood. Personally I wouldn't ask people during the game to fill in blanks, but that's just me. I don't think it hurts the game if everyone is okay with it.

There is an OSR game called Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures. It puts filling-in-the-blanks into character and setting creation. So as the players roll to create their characters, they are asked to add details about each other, add locations to the map, add and name NPCs, etc. It's pretty neat. So that's at least before rather than during the game.

Yes? And? Have you read their posts? They literally have said they don't understand what I mean when I use words like "PC" and "player," that they can't extrapolate my meaning from what I wrote.

Yes? And? So why do you choose to be rude about it? It's not like pemerton is the only one wants to draw this distinction.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

So the GM's not even allowed to narrate what the PCs see while travelling to town unless it directly affects a player-authored concern that already exists?

In BW, if the scene of them traveling to town doesn't touch upon one of the characters' beliefs, then it shouldn't be part of play. If the travel scene does target their beliefs, then I don't have a problem with this being part of the GM's framing, but the scene can't linger there -- unless it's the part that is targeting the characters' beliefs. That said, typically, I wouldn't bring up abandoned farms unless it was part of the situation we'd agreed upon prior to play. I might describe farms, but not much else.

Edit: misspelling, fixed a "players'" that should have been "characters'."

 

[Faolyn]

This is what’s causing confusion. You say “PCs” as if the word is interchangeable with “players”, and although I can get why, for many games the distinction is more important. @pemerton has been describing the play of Burning Wheel, and has been distinguishing between player and character to try and make the process of play clear. You’ve expressed confusion about the process of play, and at times it seems related to who’s doing what, and you don’t seem to be distinguishing between characters and players, so it seems likely to be at least part of where the confusion is coming from.

I (possibly) mistyped one word, and pemerton appeared to break down, completely unable to understand what I was talking about. Even though they have supposedly played in AD&D and D&D, both of which accept that the words are, occasionally, used interchangeably.

Does playing Burning Wheel cause you to forget everything about all other RPGs?

 

[Aldarc]

I (possibly) mistyped one word, and pemerton appeared to break down, completely unable to understand what I was talking about. Even though they have supposedly played in AD&D and D&D, both of which accept that the words are, occasionally, used interchangeably.

They are used interchangeably in these older games, but that doesn't mean that it's acceptable or clear. Shall we go back and see what other words in days past were used interchangeably that we now prefer distinguishing between? There are other people, not just pemerton, who believe that the being clear on the distinction for purposes of discussion is important.

Does playing Burning Wheel cause you to forget everything about all other RPGs?

 

[Faolyn]

Yes? And? So why do you choose to be rude about it? It's not like pemerton is the only one wants to draw this distinction.

So it's OK for AbdulAlhazred to say that I'm incapable of understanding RPGs because I disagree with them, but not OK for me to point out that pemerton has actually said they don't understand me?