Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
I'm uninterested in a socratic approach to your point. If you have a point, please make it.
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
I'm uninterested in a socratic approach to your point. If you have a point, please make it.
Are you saying that in DW, the success chance for all important checks is roughly identical? Does DW not attempt to account for the difficulty of the PC's chosen action? How can the players have agency in DW if their choices don't influence the odds of success? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you meant?
Pretty much the same, yes.
There are three possible results to any type of attempt (only players make attempts):
- 10+, the player gets a full success.
- 7-9, it's a partial success; they don't get everything they wanted or they'll get what they want, but have to sacrifice something else.
- 6- they've failed
Here a small sample from a how-to-play introduction to the game system:
A DM controls how difficult a situation is by controlling the environment the players need to respond to and the number of player attempts required to complete an action such as this exchange:
versus
One of the interesting things about this thread, for me, has been the distinctions that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has been drawing between "scene framing" approaches and "MCing/principled GMing" approaches.
To me, at least, that's new - I don't recall seeing it in any of the other threads you referred to.
Another interesting thing has been the discussion - especially between [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and me - over the difference between a "static" situation, which reacts to player action declarations for their PCs, and a "GM puts the world into motion" situation. Some posters (eg [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], I thinik also [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]) seem to classify these both as sandboxes and see the salient difference only being whether the world is "boring" or "interesting because living/breathing".
Whereas I feel my discussion with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has brought out quite a different point of contrast, namely, the extent to which one tends to support a style of player-driven RPGing, whereas the other tends to put the GM into the driver's seat.
I recognise that others may not be interested in these matters, but - as the one who started the thread! - I regard them as worthwhile outcomes.
I'm not sure I get this: what is the connection betwee "illusionism" and players not wanting their PCs to die?
I didn't say that anything is bad GMing, nor did I say that anything is a "failed sandbox".
I did say, and I reiterate in this post: a game in which the action is driven by GM behind-the-scenes manipulation of the fiction is not a player-driven one of the sort that I prefer. I think, in fact, that it self-evidenty is GM-driven.
Whether this is good or bad GMing depends, as [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] said, upon what a particular table is looking for in their RPGing. How it compares to "Fronts" in the PbtA sense I'll let [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] or [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] respond to - though my sense, resulting from play moreso than reading, is that there is a big difference between (i) a game in which the causation behind events is murky to the players, and a major goal of play is trying to unravel the GM's "metaplot" (I'm thinking of 2nd ed AD&D play experiences) and (ii) a game in which the rationale for what is happening in the shared fiction is clear (ie the GM is bringing pressure to bear upon the players via interposing obstacles to the PCs' pursuit of their goals) and the major goal as a player is not to work out what is going on but rather to choose which value to realise in circumstances where some sacrifices will have to be made, or costs borne (I'm thinking of DW play experiences).
As to the claim about things being boring: I've run the Keep part of KotB multiple times: it's not boring. There are NPCs with interesting motivations (a cultist priest; a rivalry between two authority figures in the keep) and these provide a source of dynamism. The apparent implication that static until it reacts to the PCs as played by their players must entail static per se seems to me to be another indication of thiniking of the game primarily in terms of how the GM might drive it, rather than how the players might do so.
(There is also an interesting contrast here with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s post upthread about illusionism: Lanefan seemed to express the view that actual, real world stuff that the GM does but the plaeyrs don't know about isn't a thing of any signficance; and in your post, you seem to suggest that imaginary stuff that happens in the GM's conception of the fiction but is not part of the play at the table nevertheless is significant to the players.)
Yes, if the player had different Beliefs for his PC, then the range of sensible failure narrations would be different. I'm not sure what is meant to follow from that.
As I said in the post you quoted, "If a GM frames a player into a situation that manifestly fails to speak to a PC's Beliefs, the the player can tell." So where do you think the illusion is? What you describe is just naked disregard of the game's governing principles.
More generally, are you really trying to argue that a game can't be designed or played in a way that makes a difference to the amenability of illusionism on the part of the GM? What about dice-rolling procedures? - Gygax's DMG takes for granted that the GM will roll dice secretly from the players; the MHRP rulebook states "There are no secrets in the Bullpen!" and hence all dice are rolled in front of everyone.
Or what about DW player-side moves, which state expressly what the player is entitled to on a success, and what the GM is entitlded to do on a failure?
Or contrast the following cases: in BW, a player declares that his/her sorcerer casts a spell, the difficutly is set, the casting is resolved. Certain failure results can lead to the spell fizzling. In AD&D, on the other hand, a spell can fizzle if cast into an anti-magic zone, which the GM is allowed to keep secret until the player declares the casting, and even then the GM is not obliged to explain why the spell fizzled - the player is expected to work it out.
These are all differences of procedure that create different sorts of scope for various GM approaches.
On "framing", I had a lengthy post not too far upthread (here).
On consequences, as I replied to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], if the narrated consequences don't speak to the Beliefs of the PCs (which are authored by their players) that will be evident. The plaeyrs will no that the GM is not running the game as advertised. There's no illusion.
But a map isn't a flowchart, is it? Even a recipe isn't a flowchart, in the sense that you might change the sequence of steps (eg often I don't turn the oven on at the start like the recipe says, because it doesn't take that long to heat up and I want to conserve power).
Whereas an "event-based" flowchart isn't a map. It's a temporal sequence of events - a "plot", if you like.
Appendix B of LotR is something like a story; an atlas isn't.
Last edited:
But the question of whether [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] will give more options isn't a question about interpreting some bit of fiction (ie it's not a question of literary criticism). It's a question of what Lanefan is prepared to do at his table (ie it is, broadly, a question of anthropology). Lanefan already told us a couple of things about his table - if you leave the party, or become a magsitrate, then the PC is retired. For all you know, any PC who sets out to become King of the Northern Barbarians (assuming such things even exist in Lanefan's world) likewise has to be retired.
The fact that you can speculate about what Lanefan may or may not do at his table is of little relevance to establishing what actually happens and is permitted at his table.
The study of human cultural practies and associated social dynamics.
Corpsetaker
First Post
Here is my take on this.
I personally, as a player and DM, love living breathing worlds that continue to function even if we as characters don't engage with it. I don't really like games where nothing happens in the world unless it's by the direct actions of the players. I like games where we are adventurers and not necessarily world saving heroes.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
A world in motion doesn't make it GM driven. An example of this kind of mechanic is the Fronts mentioned previously - defined threats that have agendas and advance those agendas over time or due to player action. So long as this information is available to players (available doesn't always mean apparent, though) then it still can fully meet the concepts of player driven. The players choose to engage the front or not, but the knowledge is always there that choosing to do either is engaging a facet of the game and up to the players.
You once again seem to assume a worst case example for the other side to compare/contrast against. This seems odd, given that the posters you support in this thread are presenting mechanics that do essentially the same thing (Fronts). I can agree that a DM can abuse this and have a story going on that the players can't engage or alter, but that doesn't mean that the concept requires or even implies this outcome. Having movement in the sandbox that isn't entirely dependent on the players doesn't mean that the game is now DM-centric as opposed to player-centric.
To go to an actual sandbox reference, just because you stopped building your sand castle in this corner to go play with the shovel and funnel in the other corner doesn't mean that the sand castle's going to be exactly as you left it if you come back -- other kids might play with it. If you're told, up front, there are other kids in the sandbox, and you see them playing with things, doesn't restrict your ability to drive your own story in the sandbox, as a player. Especially if the other kids are there for you to play with if you want.
[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION], [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]
I think [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s question is fairlyi straightforward - who is bored by a world that is not changing when it is not part of play?
Corpsetaker says "I don't really like games where nothing happens in the world unless it's by the direct actions of the players." But this seems to be quite a different point. For instance, if I was running the KotB, the (secretly evil) priest might approach the PCs, saying "So-and-so suggested that you were interested in advice about the nature of undeath". That is "something happening in the world other than by the direct actions of the PCs" (namely, one NPC spoke to another). But it's not offscreen - it's part of the ingame situation into which the GM is framing the PCs.
Whereas Ovinomancer said "A world that doesn't change unless a player looks at it is boring" - and chaochou's question is, Who is getting bored? On the (apparently reasonable) assumption that the players aren't going to be entertained by something they're not looking at (eg the GM's secret notes about changes in the gameworld) then presumably they're not going to be bored by that either (eg by the fact that the GM doesn't have secret notes about changes in the gameworld).
I think [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s question is fairlyi straightforward - who is bored by a world that is not changing when it is not part of play?
Corpsetaker says "I don't really like games where nothing happens in the world unless it's by the direct actions of the players." But this seems to be quite a different point. For instance, if I was running the KotB, the (secretly evil) priest might approach the PCs, saying "So-and-so suggested that you were interested in advice about the nature of undeath". That is "something happening in the world other than by the direct actions of the PCs" (namely, one NPC spoke to another). But it's not offscreen - it's part of the ingame situation into which the GM is framing the PCs.
Whereas Ovinomancer said "A world that doesn't change unless a player looks at it is boring" - and chaochou's question is, Who is getting bored? On the (apparently reasonable) assumption that the players aren't going to be entertained by something they're not looking at (eg the GM's secret notes about changes in the gameworld) then presumably they're not going to be bored by that either (eg by the fact that the GM doesn't have secret notes about changes in the gameworld).
I assume that this is a joke, because it's in your signature sign-off.
But just for clarity - none of the campaigns I'm currently running involves wandering monster checks.
Similar Threads
