Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ilbranteloth]

Of course it answers the question, for the DM; and that's the point. The players don't know - they're playing to find out.

So this assertion, which [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has made as well, is one I object to for no specific reason. It just bugs me.

I think it's because of the statement that "the players are trying to figure out what's in the DMs notes." And I disagree.

The characters are trying to accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Some of that is probably to uncover various mysteries of life, and mysteries in their life. The only one that can provide those answers is the DM.

Just because I know something that the players don't doesn't mean the players are "playing to find out." The players might find out, they might not. They might not care to find out.

For example, I'm adopted. I have no interest in searching out my biological "parents." They aren't my parents.

I have a secret backstory, and I don't care. Just because the DM has thought of secret backstory for the characters doesn't mean that it will ever come into play.

More importantly, it should only come into play if:

They player wants it to; and/or
It adds something of value to the campaign.

So regardless of what I might have thought regarding a character's secret backstory 2 years ago, it isn't "real" until it comes into play. And guess what? Many times that secret backstory changes over time too. What popped into my head during a session 2 years ago is a note I make, and I play with it. Can I do something with this? Can it add something interesting to the campaign? Where might it lead? Is it really compelling?

When one of my players declared his character was divorced, I didn't really think about it. Then, when I was looking for a way to tie a particular NPC into the story a little tighter, because he was going to be a foil for that particular character, it occurred to me that it's his hated ex-brother-in-law, whom he had stated had something to do with the divorce.

And guess what, all backstory unknown to the player/character is secret backstory. Whether it's authored in the moment, or it occurs to the DM earlier on, it's still secret backstory for that character. Just as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] asserts that authoring the fiction doesn't alter the fiction.

 

[Poisonthorns Duelist]

Players should be having fun. End of story. Most player's don't like to be railroaded and it ruins their experience, but sometimes it is a better alternative than not having much ready for them. You just need to figure out how important the story you crafted is to you and whether or not it would be worth it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I played my BW character yesterday, and I then GMed a session of MHRP-style Cortex Fantasy.

Here is some stuff that is relevant to the discussion around approaches to RPGing and how the shared fiction is established.

Burning Wheel
In the BW session, we first spent a bit of time with the GM explaining to me where things were going to be located on the map of Greyhawk. Generally, BW favours a loose approach to world creation and world geography but we've been using GH in the campaign where I'm GM, so this made sense. I don't know what he had or hadn't read online about the Principality of Ulek and the Pomarj, and how much he just made up himself, but in any event this was all good stuff to establish some basic framing for the campaign.

Then, after some introductory framing explaining that Aramina (my travelling companion) and I (ie my PC) are wandering through the frontier, witnessing abandoned homesteads with signs of flight, I declared a couple of initial checks: a Homestead-wise check (untrained) to learn more about the circumstances of abandonment of this particular ruined homestead, which succeeded, and hence (in this case) extracted some more narration of backstory from the GM; and then a Scavenging check, looking for the gold that the homesteaders would have left behind in their panic and which the orcs would have been too lazy to find.

Unfortunately this second check failed, which meant that orcs from a raiding party had virtually infiltrated the homestead before I noticed them. Aramina panicked (failed Steel check) but I commanded her to make for the horse (successful Command check to overcome her hesitation), but then - following through on the failed Scavenging check - the GM called for opposed Speed checks. Aramina lost, so the orcs surrounded her. I tied with the orcs, so made it to the horse but (given the tie) the GM then called for another check - my Knots check vs the orcs' Speed to see if I could unloose the knot tying the horse to the post before the orcs closed. I couldn't, and so we were in combat.

The orcs were threatening Aramina but (triggering my instinct) I was able to interpose myself to protect her. I beat up the orcs - go plate-and-mail against orcish spears (needing one roll of 4+ on six dice to deflect their blows) and a "versus armour" rating of 3 with my mace, meaning they need to roll 4 such successes with their 3 dice for their leather armour to deflect my blows! At one point I did roll a 1 on my armour check, though, and so my breast plate lost a die of protection.

The orcs were part of a larger raiding party, with mumakil. I think the GM was hoping I might chase the mumakil, but I have no animal handling, animal lore etc and so the mumakil remained nothing but mere colour.

The larger raiding party was chased off by a force of elves. I'm not surprised that elves should show up - my GM loves elves!, just like I'm notorious for using undead and demons - but the interaction with the elves probably took an unexpected turn.

I (again, in character) told Aramina to try to staunch the wounds of one of the fallen orcs, so we might interrogate them, while mounting the horse to go and meet up with the elves and look for their leader. I tried an untrained Heraldry check to recognise the elves' arms, and failed - so the elven leader was not too taken by me! In this there was cross-narration by me and the GM, but it ran in the same direction: as I was saying (in character) that I don't recognise the elven leader's arms and wondered who he was, he (spoken by the GM) was telling me that he didn't like my somewhat discourteous look. The GM is entitled to narrate such a thing - I failed my check, after all.

I don't know what, if anything, the GM had in mind for the elves, but one of my Beliefs is that fame and infamy shall no longer befall my ancestral estate. So I invited the elf to travel with his soldiers south to my ancestral estate, where we might host them. The GM had the elf try and blow me off, but I was serious about this and so called for a Duel of Wits. Unfortunately my dice pool was very weak compared to the elf's (6 Will dice being used for untrained Persuasion, so slightly weaker than 3 Persuasion dice vs 7 Will dice and 6 Persuasion dice) and so despite my attempt as a player to do some clever scripting I was rebuffed by the elf without getting even a compromise.

As I said, I don't know what the GM had in mind for the elves but I'm pretty sure the GM hadn't anticipated this. So I don't know what he anticipated for the elves' departure, but in the game it followed my failure to persuade the elf to join me. In the course of discussion the elf did mention that one orc - who may or may not have fallen in battle, he wasn't sure - was wearing a shield bearing the crest of the Iron Tower. I think the GM was expecting me to pursue this orc, but I didn't, for two reasons: (i) having been rebuffed by the elven leader, I wanted to head off in a different direction, and (ii) I'm a bit worried that Aramina is too squishy for hunting orcs!, and I'm pretty vulnerable too to being swarmed. If we return back this way once the orcs have had a few days to move out, we might then search the woods for the shield.

So the session ended with Aramina and I riding out following the river to the NW, but along the southern (ie Ulek) bank, and then setting up camp at the end of the day. Aramina was angry that I made us ride out, once the elves had left and in order to avoid any trouble from orc survivors, without having any lunch: from the mechanical point of view I was angling for a Fate point for being Disciplined, and for a Fate point for Araamina's fiery temper. I expect to start the next session trying to persuade Aramina to beat out the dint in my breastplate (she has Mending skill; I don't) and then some Cooking and maybe some campfire action.

Upthread, I quoted a bit from the BW rules where Luke Crane says that if, as a player, you're not grabbed by the story, it's your job to make things interesting! As I've said, I don't know what the GM had in mind for the elves but I did my bit to make it interesting. I think the GM's favourite part of the session was the fight with the orcs, but mine was the Duel of Wits with the elf. Even though I lost, I (i) got some good advancement checks, and (ii) enjoyed speaking my arguments as the rules require - especially my "avoiding of the topic" (which, mechanically, allows me to use my Will in defence rather than my untrained Persuasion), and (iii) established more about my character and his relationship to the ingame situation.

This was the first time this GM has ever GMed a session. It was a fun session. My choices clearly mattered, in the ways I've described above. The GM had a sheet of paper in front of him with about half-a-page of print out, and I think that had some notes that he was using to help manage his orcs and his elves (as well as some stablocks from the rulebook). But the actual events of play clearly weren't pre-scripted: they couldn't have been, because they were driven by my action declarations, which is as it should be in BW.

Cortex Fantasy
This is a much more light-hearted RPG than BW. The characters are more two-dimensional, and the whole experience is much less gritty.

The PCs started the session separated in a dungeon. After a bit of hijinks finishing off an un-resolved conflict from our last session, I spent a Doom Pool die to rejoin the two groups. In the fiction, this was a combination of a successful creation of a "Secret Exit" asset by one of the PCs (who had been on his own in a necromantically cursed room with many burial niches in its walls, out of which zombies had come, and who - in wolf form, with his wolf companions - was crawling through an empty zombie niche looking for a way out) and a failed attempt by one of the two PCs in the other chamber (where they'd just fought giant spiders) to find a secret exit from the chamber: I narrated that, as he turned away from the wall in frustration, his sword-hilt struck a roundel and pressed it into the stone, opening a secret door.

This secret door led into a hidden chamber with a pack of ghouls - the same chamber into which the wolves were crawling following the winding ghoul-tunnels that lay beyond the zombie niches.

(Bringing the two groups together powered down the wolf PC, who is strongest solo, and also one of the other two PCs, who - at that point, before spending XP to swap things around - was strongest in a pair rather than solo or in a team. It also made my life as GM a bit easier.)

After dispatching the ghouls (the wolf PC getting the benefit of his "Secret Exit" asset - the ghouls didn't expect an attack via their tunnels!), the PCs followed strange piping music down a hitherto-hidden tunnel leading out of the ghouls' secret room to the lair of a Crypt Thing. The berserker attacked but missed. I think the wolf skin-changer tried something - I can't remember what - but with little success. But then the Doom Pool build up to 2d12 and so I was able to spend it to end the scene - in the fiction, the Crypt Thing teleported them all into an empty room on a lower dungeon level. Mechanically, this landed them all with a d12 Lost in the Dungeon complication.

After taking a rest (ie a Transition scene), they headed out and I described the next scene - a pillared hall with murals, flickering braziers, and a living statue guarding great doors. While the two warriors dispatched the statute, the skinchanger read the mural to try and work out where in the dungeon he was - mechanically, he successfully eliminated his Lost in the Dungeon complication. The swordthane did the same after dispatching the statue, and then helped the berserker also to read the mural/map before the latter then broke down the door. The skinchanger had continue to study the mural/map and had worked out the Path to the Treasure (a d10 or d12 - I can't remember precisely - asset).

On the other side of the door was the land of the svartalfar: a land of faerie fire, of deadly traps, and with the glint of gold. The PCs were confronted by four dark elves - a young fighter, an experience fighter, a C/F/MU and a F/MU (mechanically, I was using 4 statblocks from facing pages of the Civil War sourcebook: one I can't remember, but the other three were Lady Deathstrike and Moonstone - both good dark elven names - and Radioactive Man, who made a good drow wizard once I respecced his Radiation Control as Earth and Stone Control). The skinchanger used his Cunning expertise and his established knowledge of the path to the treasure to bluff Moonstone, the C/F/MU, into taking him to the dark elven treasure vaults - also picking up Milestone-based XP in the process for leaving his allies in a risky situation - and ended up finishing the scene with a huge (d12+) treasure asset. The other PCs finished off the three remaining dark elves, but not before the F/MU brought the stone crashing down, blocking off the tunnels the skinchanger and Moonstone had travelled through.

Next session will be a new act, I think, with the skinchanger needing a new Milestone now that he's finished off one by taking the treasure and leaving the dungeon; and probably beginning with the other two PCs having left the land of the dark elves after long wanderings through subterranean tunnels.

Although much of the detail of the setting is introduced by me as GM in the course of framing, key elements are introduced by the players, mostly in the form of assets - the tunnels into the ghoul room; the fact that the murals in the pillared hall have a map of the dungeon; and the drow treasure (and my Scene Distinction Glint of Gold was itself a riff on the fact that the skinchanger PC had established a Path to Treasure asset). The framing itself was all spontaneous as needed, although the stat blocks were mostly prepared in advance (I'd written up Ghouls and a Crypt Thing, used the MHRP book for dark elves, and only the Living Statute was written up by me ex tempore).

But this account should also make it fairly clear why the notion of "illusionism" just has no purchase in this game. Everything's on the surface: the Scene Distinctions, the Doom Pool growing or shrinking (it started the session at 2d6, 1d8, 2d10 and ended at 1d6, 1d8), the assets and complications, the NPCs in a scene, etc. There's nothing even remotely analogous to a fork in the road with the same encounter destined to occur down either path.

Well, in regard to the possibility of illusionism (in the fork in the road sense), that would depend on the GM's intentions. You'd have to actually attempt it, I think. Some GMs might never use the technique in any game system. That doesn't really prove it can't be done. Just that it wasn't attempted.

In terms of the stories, I could step through the description step-by-step and it would work just fine in D&D. There's nothing that I see that isn't similar to things that have happened in my campaigns.

I do have a question, though: At a couple of points you mention that "mechanically you were thinking" such-and-such. I try to tweak my rules so the players think as the characters in the world, not take actions based on what they might gain or lose in the mechanics. To put it a different way, I try to ensure the benefits and drawbacks of a mechanical rule matches that in the game world.

Do you find that the actions in the game are more driven by the rules, or supported by the rules? Or is that more because you're trying to explain what happened?

For example: "I declared a couple of checks - an homestead-wise check..." Because in my campaign it would just be, "I want to examine the homesteads a little closer to see if I can determine why they were abandoned." Depending on the circumstance, I would either give an answer (because their passive Perception and/or Investigation are sufficient), or ask for an Investigation check. One of the rules of thumb I like is that players should never declare skills, they should declare actions. I will ask for a skill check if it's needed.

For example, in my campaign this:

Unfortunately this second check failed, which meant that orcs from a raiding party had virtually infiltrated the homestead before I noticed them. Aramina panicked (failed Steel check) but I commanded her to make for the horse (successful Command check to overcome her hesitation), but then - following through on the failed Scavenging check - the GM called for opposed Speed checks. Aramina lost, so the orcs surrounded her. I tied with the orcs, so made it to the horse but (given the tie) the GM then called for another check - my Knots check vs the orcs' Speed to see if I could unloose the knot tying the horse to the post before the orcs closed. I couldn't, and so we were in combat.

The orcs were threatening Aramina but (triggering my instinct) I was able to interpose myself to protect her. I beat up the orcs - go plate-and-mail against orcish spears (needing one roll of 4+ on six dice to deflect their blows) and a "versus armour" rating of 3 with my mace, meaning they need to roll 4 such successes with their 3 dice for their leather armour to deflect my blows! At one point I did roll a 1 on my armour check, though, and so my breast plate lost a die of protection.

Would play out more like this:

First, I don't know how a failed scavenging check (to find something - or an investigation check) would result in an orc raiding party infiltrating the homestead before you or your companions noticed. This is the sort of disconnect that I think bothers a lot of people with the Story Now approach. Why not a Stealth check vs. Passive Perception (perhaps with disadvantage since you're focused on something else)? This would have been your surprise check. I get that it's very similar - you were so focused on what you were doing that you failed to notice them. But if your character is one that has a high perception and a low investigation, it could be a sore point.

So Aramina panicked (obviously not surprised) (not sure a check is needed here, just role-playing) and you command her to make for the horse. Many players would object to the actions of another PC taking even this little bit of control of their character (or is she an NPC)? If it's a PC, it would be up to them to decide if they follow your command. If it is an NPC, then it would have been a Persuasion check if it was necessary (as I said, I use passive skills frequently, so this would probably initially be addressed with a passive check since you're probably not intending to use your action to do it).

I don't use initiative in my combat, instead I'd consider the positioning of the orcs and your character, along with the actions you're taking to determine what's happening when. In this case, the orcs were in closing range already (within about 90 feet in my campaign), Aramina noticed them and wasn't surprised. You were, so they got the jump on you. Getting to the horses and untying the knot would take longer than the orcs reaching Aramina (particularly since you were surprised), but the orcs weren't rushing to the attack either (at least it didn't sound like it), giving you time to get between them.

So Aramina turns to head toward the horse, but the orcs intervene, block her path and begin to surround her. Not sure how many times you've tied a horse to a post, but I wouldn't expect you to need to make a check to untie it. However, if you asked or indicated that you wanted to untie the horse first I would either determine that the orcs were faster that you moving over to the horse and untying it, or we'd make a reaction check (essentially an opposed initiative check) to see who would resolve their action first.

Since you could determine that the orcs would get to Aramina before you could untie the horse, you rush over to protect her instead. Combat ensues. I do have armor damage in my campaign, and without going through an actual combat, I couldn't tell you if the armor was damaged or not, but we'll agree it was.

So to write it with a better flow:

You were so intent on digging through the rubble you didn't notice the orcs (failed surprise check) until Aramina reacted in a panic. As they close with weapons drawn, you yell to Aramina to get to the horses. Hoping you can get them untied to make a quick escape you start to move toward them ("can I untie the horses before Aramina is attacked?"), but the orcs got too much of a jump on you and are spreading out to surround Aramina ("You doubt it, they're too close." "OK, I'll move to protect Aramina instead."). So instead you move between her and as many of the orcs as you can, and the battle begins!

I use a lot of passive checks, so your untrained Heraldry check wouldn't have required a roll, either you know it or you don't. "The elf notices the brief perplexed look on your face as you fail to recognize his herald."

 

[pemerton]

How about I think that I am incapable of presenting a coherent relevant game world to the players through the eyes of their characters if I (the DM) don't have some prepared material and knowledge of said game world that the characters don't?

That may well be true! I'm not going to gainsay someone else's estimation of his/her abilities. I'm just wary of generalisation from one's own case across the whole of RPG-dom.

I'm going to give you some Dog's specific GMing direction straight from Vincent Baker:

a) "Follow the players' lead about what's important and what's not."

b) When you create The Towns, "something's wrong (Pride, Sin, False Doctrine, False Priesthood, Hate & Murder), of course...that's what makes the game interesting."

c) Setup; "you need some NPCS with claims to the PCs time, some NPCs who can't ignore the PCs' arrival, some NPCs who've done harm, but for reasons anybody could understand."

d) Don't have plot points in mind beforehand..."don't play the story". Just play The Town. Present the PC's with choices; "provoke the players to have their characters take action then...react (with your NPCs/The Town)!" Always do this to keep play driven toward conflict, over and over, escalating as necessary, until all conflict in The Town is resolved. (DitV 137-139)

e) Reflect between Towns with the players. Use what they've gained, lost, and given you to "push them a little bit further in the next Town."

Point a) specifically says the DM should follow the lead of the players about what's important and not. Moreso I think the players should be the primary authors of the story - as Eero pointed out, the DM is in control of the backstory and setting, the players in control of the story. Steps b) and c) continue in that approach, but then d) and e) instruct the DM to drive the story.

I think this may relate to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s comments about "GM steering".

In what way do you see (d) and (e) as instructing the GM to drive the story?

As I see it, (d) instructs the GM to "go where the action is" - it's another statement of the framing role of the GM, whereby the GM has to frame scenes that speak to theme/premise and thereby provoke choices by the players for their PCs.

If we think about [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example of the PC's brother's hat in the brothel, that is the GM "keep[ing] play driven towards conflict". It's the player, not the GM, who chose to make the brother a significant element in play; and it is the player who will make the choices that determine the outcomes.

(e) is another instruction about framing, and the use of consequences from previous situations to inform new situations. Those consequences will be the result of player action declarations, which in turn were made in response to framings that spoke to the thematic concerns established by the players. So I'm not seeing how it is "GM driven". Are you able to articulate what you mean by "GM driven"?

the idea that a characters Perception check, which is designed to determine if they notice something is there, as opposed to determine whether something is there or not, rubs me the wrong way.

The Perception check did determine if the PC noticed that something is there. Of course, a necessary condition of noticing that something is there is that it be there.

So from the fact that the PC notices it - which is established by the Perception check - we can infer that it is there.

This is certainly not opposed to the design of Perception and other knowledge checks in this system.

I think it's because of the statement that "the players are trying to figure out what's in the DMs notes." And I disagree.

The characters are trying to accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Some of that is probably to uncover various mysteries of life, and mysteries in their life. The only one that can provide those answers is the DM.

Just because I know something that the players don't doesn't mean the players are "playing to find out." The players might find out, they might not. They might not care to find out.

By "playing to find out" I mean something quite different from [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. The slogan comes - I believe - from Apocalypse World/PtbA games. I contrast it with RPGing where "secret backstory" matters to resolution - because in the latter case the GM is not playing to find out: s/he already knows.

And I don't undertand why you disagree with my reference to the players finding out what is in the GM's notes. If (to quote you) the only one who can provide those answers is the DM, then that precisely seems to be the players finding out what is in the GM's notes.

The vessel example is a (small) instance of "playing to find out" and the contrast with the players learning what is in the GM's notes: I did not have pre-written notes, nor create some notes on the spot by rolling on a "random stuff in a wizard's chamber" table. It was the resolution of the player's action declaration ("I look for a vessel to catch the spilling blood!") that determined that particular aspect of the fiction. That is an example of what I mean by "playing to find out". And that method can be generalised beyond vessels in wizardly chambers to other things (eg Why did a balrog possess my brother? Is the Dusk War upon us? Why is my brother's hat hanging in the foyer of this brothel? What is the attitude of this elven captain to the human nobility? etc).

That's the difference between what Ron Edwards calls "exploring setting and situation" and what he calls "narrativism"/"story now" and Eero Tuovinen calls "the standard narrativistic model".

In and of itself, the Story Now approach makes for an interesting and fun game. And there really isn't a reason why I can't do the same thing in D&D. Sure, the rules don't specifically support it in the same way, in that the rules don't make you address the fiction directly as they are more mechanical in nature. But they don't prevent me from doing it either.

<snip>

The Story Now approach often has the same problem that I have with a lot of current TV series. For example, Hawaii Five-O - my wife loves it. Except that every single week you have a small group of law enforcement involved in large gun battles with villains toting automatic weapons. In Hawaii. Why would anybody vacation there? The place is obviously crawling with out-of-control criminal elements.

It's ludicrous.

<snip>

The Story Now approach is very good at what it does. I think it would be a much better fit than earlier RPG attempts at James Bond. Mission-based would fit very well with the narrower focus of Story Now.

<snip>

Can you have a long-term campaign with a Story Now system?

Two things.

(1) Non-4e D&D actually will give you some push-back if you try to run it "story now". One example I pointed to a few posts upthread is the fact that spells, including information-gathering spells, tend to grant players automatic successes. Hence they aren't able to be adjudicated by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Which means they don't support the sort of setting-of-stakes and adjudication-of-outcomes that is important to "story now" play.

(2) I feel that some your remarks - in this and earlier posts - are projecting some conception of "story now" that doesn't fit with the reality of these games.

Eg they are not generally "mission based". There is no reason why campaigns can't be lengthy - BW is designed for play over tens of sessions, although MHRP is designed for shorter sequences of play. And the "action" can be anything from gunfights to cooking. My BW PC has Cooking skill, and I'm expecting that to matter. And as I posted upthread, I'm expecting the next session to begin with me trying to persuade my wizard companion to mend the dent in my armour.

D&D doesn't really have the mechanics to make these rather prosaic matters a significant part of the game, but BW does.

 

[Lanefan]

So this assertion, which [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has made as well, is one I object to for no specific reason. It just bugs me.

I think it's because of the statement that "the players are trying to figure out what's in the DMs notes." And I disagree.

The characters are trying to accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. Some of that is probably to uncover various mysteries of life, and mysteries in their life. The only one that can provide those answers is the DM.

Just because I know something that the players don't doesn't mean the players are "playing to find out." The players might find out, they might not. They might not care to find out.

Fair enough. I used the phrase as it seems to be one that pemerton swears by, to make the point that where in his game everyone is playing to find out in my game everyone except the DM is playing to find out. In either case what they're finding out may or may not be what anyone thought they might before the session started.

Just because the DM has thought of secret backstory for the characters doesn't mean that it will ever come into play.

More importantly, it should only come into play if:

They player wants it to; and/or
It adds something of value to the campaign.

I'm not so much thinking of individual characters' secret backstory as secret backstory in the game as a whole. The gate guard is in fact a spy for the Phonecians. The next full moon will bring an unexpected outbreak of werewolves. The party's mentor who supposedly supports the king is secretly trying to overthrow him and the party have been (unknowingly) aiding this. Col. Mustard did it in the Tower with a +3 Mace. All the little (or not so little) things that a DM knows and that PCs (and thus players) don't.

Maybe they'll never meet the gate guard. They might just happen to be out of town when the werewolves hit. But they're starting to wonder about their so-called mentor...

And guess what, all backstory unknown to the player/character is secret backstory. Whether it's authored in the moment, or it occurs to the DM earlier on, it's still secret backstory for that character.

And for the game as a whole if it's on a larger scale.

Just as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] asserts that authoring the fiction doesn't alter the fiction.

I made it all the way to the end before you lost me. I don't get this one. How can you author (as in, either generate or add to) the fiction without changing it, either from what is was to what it is or from nothing at all to what it is?

Lan-"secret backstory is fertile ground for conspiracy theorists"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

The Perception check did determine if the PC noticed that something is there. Of course, a necessary condition of noticing that something is there is that it be there.

So from the fact that the PC notices it - which is established by the Perception check - we can infer that it is there.

This is certainly not opposed to the design of Perception and other knowledge checks in this system.

If the perception check fails does that automatically mean there is not a vessel there, or that there might be and it just wasn't seen?

By "playing to find out" I mean something quite different from [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. The slogan comes - I believe - from Apocalypse World/PtbA games. I contrast it with RPGing where "secret backstory" matters to resolution - because in the latter case the GM is not playing to find out: s/he already knows.

Exactly! The DM already knows! That's the whole point - it's her job - she's supposed to already know!

The vessel example is a (small) instance of this: I did not have pre-written notes, nor create some notes on the spot by rolling on a "random stuff in a wizard's chamber" table. It was the resolution of the player's action declaration ("I look for a vessel to catch the spilling blood!") that determined that particular aspect of the fiction. That is an example of what I mean by "playing to find out".

That's not playing to find out, that's playing to dream up. Sorry, but I can't live in Schroedinger World.

That said, have you read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series? I ask because your style of play brings to mind his Tel'heran'rhiod (sp?) dreamworld, which kind of works like that - whatever you successfully think up comes out real unless someone else is in the dream and thinking something else that disagrees.

Eg they are not generally "mission based". There is no reason why campaigns can't be lengthy - BW is designed for play over tens of sessions, although MHRP is designed for shorter sequences of play.

Tens of sessions is nothing. Can it handle ten years and 500+ sessions with multiple interweaving parties in the field at the same time, possibly affecting the world and each other as they go?

And the "action" can be anything from gunfights to cooking. My BW PC has Cooking skill, and I'm expecting that to matter. And as I posted upthread, I'm expecting the next session to begin with me trying to persuade my wizard companion to mend the dent in my armour.

D&D doesn't really have the mechanics to make these rather prosaic matters a significant part of the game, but BW does.

I posit you really don't need mechanics for this in the slightest. In fact, for something so basic and tranquil as sitting around the campfire the use of mechanics would just get in the way of roleplaying.

This to me is a failing of some games (I first really noticed it with 3e) - the so-called need to have a mechanic for everything, and everything represented by a mechanic.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I'm not so much thinking of individual characters' secret backstory as secret backstory in the game as a whole. The gate guard is in fact a spy for the Phonecians. The next full moon will bring an unexpected outbreak of werewolves. The party's mentor who supposedly supports the king is secretly trying to overthrow him and the party have been (unknowingly) aiding this. Col. Mustard did it in the Tower with a +3 Mace. All the little (or not so little) things that a DM knows and that PCs (and thus players) don't.

When I'm thinking about "secret backstory" I'm thinking about this stuff too, but in particular about it being used to adjudicate action resolutions - so eg if a PC asks the guard to carry a message, then the GM decides whether or not the Phoenicians learn the content of the message not by reference to the overt context of the framing and action declaration, but by reference to the secret knowledge that the guard is a spy.

I used the phrase as it seems to be one that pemerton swears by, to make the point that where in his game everyone is playing to find out in my game everyone except the DM is playing to find out. In either case what they're finding out may or may not be what anyone thought they might before the session started.

When the answers are found by looking up the GM's notes (or rolling on a table to generate answers on the fly; or the GM making a call based on what seems "realistic" for the situation) then the GM is not finding out. The GM might be surprised that the players learned that the guard is a spy, but did not learn that the mentor is a traitor to the king, but none of these revelations is in itself surprising for the GM, because the GM authored all of them.

How can you author (as in, either generate or add to) the fiction without changing it, either from what is was to what it is or from nothing at all to what it is?

When REH authored the Conan stories, he changed the world - it now contains stories that previously it didn't.

But from the perspective of the fiction he didn't change anything about Conan, or the Black Circle, or the Turanian cavalry, etc. Being authored is something that occurs in the real world, but it's not a property that things have within the world of the fiction.

That's not playing to find out, that's playing to dream up. Sorry, but I can't live in Schroedinger World.

That said, have you read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series? I ask because your style of play brings to mind his Tel'heran'rhiod (sp?) dreamworld, which kind of works like that - whatever you successfully think up comes out real unless someone else is in the dream and thinking something else that disagrees.

Upthread you insisted on distinguishing player from PC, but now you're running them together. The PC didn't dream anything up. He looked for a vessel and saw one.

 

[Sadras]

Mystery: why did the PC's brother become possessed by a balrog?

Pemerton who decided on this? Was this (1) PC backstory and the PCs wanted to explore it or was it (2) an unhappy result of a check or was it (3) narration by a DM?

(1) and (3) is standard practice by all DMs, as for (2) see below.

Clue - narrated by the GM as a consequence of a failed Scavenging check: the PC searches the ruined tower where he and his brother once lived and worked, hoping to find the nickel-silver mace he left behind 14 years ago when fleeing attacking orcs; but instead, he finds cursed black arrows in the ruins of what had been his brother's private workroom.

If the Scavenging check was a success could you not provide the same 'unhappy' clue.

Further clue - narrated by the GM as a consequence of a failed Aura Reading check: the PC reads the magical aura of the arrows, hoping to learn who made them - it was his brother![/indent]

Again, are you saying that if the Aura Reading was a success you as DM could not narrate the above? And would the player call you out on an "unhappy result"? I find 'yes' on those answers hard to believe.

The clues point towards an answer to the mystery - the PC's brother was evil, and hence a fitting receptacle for balrog possession. They are narrated by the GM (snip).

Thing is if you as DM are doing the narrating for both success and failure and can swing either way, happy or unhappy, without objection by the players then I'm wondering why this thread is still on-going.

 

[pemerton]

Can it handle ten years and 500+ sessions with multiple interweaving parties in the field at the same time, possibly affecting the world and each other as they go?

As far as I'm aware the answer is "yes", because Luke Crane discusses this sort of thing, in relation to his home game, in the Adventure Burner.

If the perception check fails does that automatically mean there is not a vessel there, or that there might be and it just wasn't seen?

This is no different from the secret door upthread. Exactly the same principles apply.

If the check is failed and consequences have to be narrated by the GM, one essential component of those consequences is that the intent was not realised: the PC does not see a vessel suitable for catching the blood in. The rest has to be established by the GM in accordance with the general principles that by now have been discussed at great length.

Whether or not it would make sense, somewhere down the track, to narrate the existence of a vessel in the room, would depend utterly on the context. If, as is probably more likely, the matter never comes up again, then we will never know whether or not there was a vessel there that was overlooked, or there was no vessel there.

This is not uncommon for works of fiction. How long does Conan keep his fingernails? Presumably there is some fact of the matter or other, but REH never tells us.

My BW PC has Cooking skill, and I'm expecting that to matter. And as I posted upthread, I'm expecting the next session to begin with me trying to persuade my wizard companion to mend the dent in my armour.

D&D doesn't really have the mechanics to make these rather prosaic matters a significant part of the game, but BW does.

I posit you really don't need mechanics for this in the slightest. In fact, for something so basic and tranquil as sitting around the campfire the use of mechanics would just get in the way of roleplaying.

This to me is a failing of some games (I first really noticed it with 3e) - the so-called need to have a mechanic for everything, and everything represented by a mechanic.

I'm not that interested in roleplaying sitting around the campfire. If I want to sit around and talk to people, I'll do that in real life rather than doing it while pretending to be someone else.

What I'm interested in is the dramatic and thematic significance of the things I mentioned. Will my (that is, my PC's) cooking sustain me and Aramina? Can I persuade her to mend my armour even though she's angry with me? I don't see how to put these questions into play without mechanics.

The context is extremely different from 3E. I would very strongly assert that 3E doesn't have the mechanics to make these prosaic matters a significant part of the game. I mean, just for starters, 3E has no mechanic whereby success or failure on a Cooking check contributes to wellbeing while travelling; it has no mechanic for damage to armour, and hence for repair of armour; and it has no mechanic for adjudicating arguments between characters.

4e can handle the first of these - a Nature check made to cook could be part of a journey resolved as a skill challenge - but it also doesn't have the armour thing, and while it has a mechanic for adjudicating arguments with NPCs (skill challenges) it doesn't have such a mechanic that would work well for an argument between companions.

 

[pemerton]

Mystery: why did the PC's brother become possessed by a balrog?

Pemerton who decided on this? Was this (1) PC backstory and the PCs wanted to explore it or was it (2) an unhappy result of a check or was it (3) narration by a DM?

(1) and (3) is standard practice by all DMs, as for (2) see below.

The possession of the PC's brother by a balrog was authored by the player as part of PC generation.

I don't think (1) is standard practice for all GMs: that is, at least on the basis of this thread, not all GMs treat it as standard practice to make the subject-matter of PC backstories the focus of play. For instance, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has said that there is no guarantee that PC backstory, family, etc will be a focus of play in his game. I think other posters may have said something similar - [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION], for instance, has said that he doesn't follow the "standard narrativistic model" of always framing scenes that speak to these player concerns evinced by build and play of their

If the Scavenging check was a success could you not provide the same 'unhappy' clue.

The short answer is "no". The middle-sized answer is "no, but". And here's the longer answer (I'll be referring mostly to the BW rulebook, but the basic principles apply across the "standard narrativistic model"):

BW Gold pp 24, 30
Burning Wheel is very much a game to be played and manipulated for fun (and profit, sort of). Dice rolls called for by the GM and players are the heart of play. These are tests. They determine the results of conflicts and help drive the story.

Tests involve the character’s abilities. . . .

Let’s start with the core of the Burning Wheel system. We call it “Intent and Task.” . . .

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . .

Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .

If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

So if the check succeeds, the consequence is that the PC finds the nickel-silver mace as desired. That's the "no". Now, onto the "but".

The GM's job is to frame scenes. Eero Tuovinen describes this very nicely:

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications. . . .

[O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.​

Here is the same thing, in Luke Crane's words:

Revised p 268; Gold p 551 (the text is the same in both editions)

In Burning Wheel, it is the GM's job to interpret all of the various intents of the players' actions and mesh them into a cohesive whole that fits within the context of the game. He's got to make sure that all the player wackiness abides by the rules. When it doesn't, he must guide the wayward players gently back into the fold. Often this requires negotiating an action or intent until both player and GM are satisfied that it fits both the concept and the mood of the game.

Also, the GM is in a unique position. He can see the big picture - what the players are doing, as well as what the opposition is up to and plans to do. His perspective grants the power to hold off one action, while another player moves forward so that the two pieces intersect dramatically at the table. More than any other player, the GM controls the flow and pacing of the game. He has the power to begin and end scenes, to present challenges and instigate conflicts. It's a heady responsibility, but utterly worthwhile.

Most important, the GM is response for introducing complications to the story and consequences to the players' choices. Burning Wheel is all about choices - from the minute you start creating a character, you are making hard choices. Once play begins, as players choose their path, it is the GM's job to meaningfully inject resonant ramifications into play. A character murders a guard. No big deal, right? Well, that's up to the GM to decide. Sure there's justice and revenge to consider - that's the obvious stuff - but there's also the bigger picture elements to consider: whole provinces have risen in revolt due to one errant murder.​

This is why, as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and I were discussing not too far upthread, the key to the GM's responsibility in this sort of game is framing scenes and narrating consequences. Because if the GM misjudges - that is, if the situation that is presented to the players for them to engage via their PCs falls flat - then the game will stall.

Here is a discussion, from Luke Crane, which includes an example of just that happening (presented as a cautionary tale for GMs):

BW Gold p 34
Beliefs are meant to be challenged, betrayed and broken. Such emotional drama makes for a good game. If your character has a Belief, "I guard the prince's life with my own," and the prince is slain before your eyes in the climax of the scenario, that’s your chance to play out a tortured and dramatic scene and really go ballistic.

Conversely, if the prince is killed right out of the gate, the character is drained of purpose. Note that the player stated he wanted to defend the prince in play, not avenge him. Killing the prince in the first session sucks the life out of the character. He really has no reason to participate any longer. But if the prince dies in the grand climax, c'est la vie. The protector must then roll with the punches and react to this new change. Even better, if the prince dies due to the actions or failures of his own guardian - now that’s good stuff.

Another example: We once had a character with the Belief: "I will one day restore my wife’s life." His wife had died, and he kept her body around, trying to figure out a way to bring her back. Well, mid-way through the game, the GM magically restored his wife to the land of the living. I’ve never seen a more crushed player. He didn't know what do! He had stated that the quest and the struggle was the goal, not the end result. "One day!" he said. But the GM insisted, and the whole scenario and character were ruined for the player.​

So, can I (as GM) present the "unhappy clue" not as a consequence for failure, but as part of framing? Or would that be like the prince being killed right out of the gate, or the wife being brought back to life via some GM deus ex machina?

My view is that it would be bad GMing. The PC - at that point - had, as a Belief, that he would free his brother from the balrog's possession. Implicit in that Belief was that the possession was unjust and an aberration. Negating that implicit assumption, as an element of framing that was not a consequence of failure, would be to deny the player the chance to "fight for what he (and his PC) believe" - which is the whole premise of BW.

Getting these judgements right is very important in "story now"/"standard narrativistic model" GMing. Which has been my response to those saying that this style is vulnerable to illusionism: that they're making up pitfalls that really have no salience, rather than talking about what can actually go wrong in this sort of RPGing.

are you saying that if the Aura Reading was a success you as DM could not narrate the above?

If the result was a success, then even moreso I can't narrate that the arrow was made by the brother! The PC is looking to vindicate his brother - it's actually identical, in narrative structure, to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example of the brother's hat hanging in the foyer of the brothel. If he succeeds, then his intent is realised: he identifies whoever it was who made these arrows (not his brother!) - and presumably the next step might be finding out why that person left arrows in a ruined tower.

And would the player call you out on an "unhappy result"?

It's not an issue of being "called out". It's about successfully GMing the game, or stuffing it up. A player may or may not go along with a game where the GM is making bad calls that prevent the player from having his/her PC "fight for what s/he believes", but that doesn't change the fact that the GM is making bad calls.