You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[N'raac]

We're missing the forest for the trees here. This discussion shows the limitations of argument by example or analogy. Rather than focus on the real issues of play we end up nitpicking details and don't walk away with anything of value. Even worse because we can only know the mind of a single participant we inject our own bias into the other participants.

There are some interesting areas of argument based on the example to be pursued though:

1. What should a player do when he is bored by the events of play? How does this differ from table to table?
2. Should time spent at the table be reflective of character effort? When is it alright for it not to be?
3. Who bears primary responsibility for player buy in?
4. What takes precedence - setting or character?
5. Does the GM's preferences take priority? Is he just another participant?

The answers to the above questions are fertile ground for discussion. I'd posit that their answers depend a lot on the individual group, but directly addressing concerns rather than through proxy will lead to a greater level of understanding.

1. I think this differs a lot from table to table, but also on the timing involved. If the player is bored by NPC interaction, maybe he sits off to one side for an hour, or even a session, and lets the other players enjoy the scenario. But if the group discussed a game with a heavy component of NPC interaction, why is this player here? By joining that game, he signed up to be bored a lot of the time. For myself as a player, I watch for what I might be able to do – which generally means I’m not all that bored.
2. Pretty subjective, I think. To me, the table time should be spent on matters where there is potential for success or failure, not just mundane activities. Buying rations? Probably mundane. Travelling down the well-patrolled King’s Highway for two weeks? Pretty safe. Deviating off into the SpiderWoods, from whence no one has returned in living memory? Looks like we’ll start spending game time. But that may start with “After walking through steadily deepening woods for about two hours, and beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about…”
3. Shared responsibility. Players have a responsibility, in my view, to create characters who will have a motivation to join the team and participate in the adventure. If your character is an introverted homebody who just wants to run his tea shoppe and be left alone, don’t expect the GM to contrive some bizarre sequence of events that forces you out of that rut. Instead, expect to deal with Q1 unless watching the other players game while your PC sits in his tea shoppe is your idea of an exciting gaming experience, of course.
4. To some extent, both. The player bears responsibility for making a character consistent with the setting. No Ninja or Samurai (or space aliens or brooding masked crimefighters) in medieval Europe. Ultimately, the game is about the characters, not the setting, so they take precedence, but that does not leave the setting unimportant.
5. The GM has a lot more ability to exercise his preferences, so by that token they will take precedence. I would hope the GM provides a balance of encounters, scenarios and challenges to interest the varying interests of all the players.

 

[N'raac]

Let’s assume another scenario, just to illustrate the “bad GM” conundrum. We have four players, and four PC’s, a wizard, a fighter, a cleric and a rogue. They were tossed together by chance and are just getting to know one another. Their first scenario saw them encounter a transport device that can cross the planes, and they are returning to their home from the wrapup of their first story arc, when Wizard makes a terrible roll and the conveyance is tossed across the planes.

Far from being home, the GM describes a wilderness outside, and in the distance on a plateau, what seems to be a city, with some kind of lighthouse tower. The players set to discussion. Each frames what they want to do in the context of their character’s personality and background. Wizard is very excited – he wants to explore that city. Fighter and Cleric both find this a distraction – they have responsibilities back home and wish to waste no further time with this cross-planar nonsense. Yes, it takes the conveyance several hours to recharge, but we can cool our heels and wait. The rogue thinks it could be fun to explore the city, but doesn’t want to make life tough for the other two, so abstains from voting.

Wizard makes a knowledge check and points out that this device can cross temporal planes, so we can arrive home just after we left, however long we take here. So let’s explore that city, guys! Fighter and Cleric are having nothing to do with it. So fine, Wizard agrees to try to get them back, and rolls a stunning Knowledge check which the GM indicates is a perfect success for him. After the recharge period (nothing happens sitting in the conveyance, so it’s a few handwaved hours), Wizard fires up the conveyance, which jerks and bobbles, and groans steadily louder, until he shuts it down.

What happened? Wizard pokes around, makes another skill check, then announces that, in that last bouncy trip, it wasn’t just us that got jostled – a part of the conveyance is broken. It’s easily repaired, but a key material is now gone, and we can’t leave without it. Good news, though, his knowledge check indicates a suitable replacement material would also be consumed by that magical lighthouse, so there should be lots in that city. He doesn’t seem too disappointed – he wanted to explore the city anyway!

Stupid powertripping GM forcing the Fighter and Cleric to explore his city with his contrived mechanical breakdown? Great GM ensuring the Wizard (and, to a lesser extent, Rogue) gets what he expressed an interest in, albeit with his contrived mechanical breakdown? Well…

FOR ME: Interested in comments before you read the spoiler, and then any impact the added spoiler info has.

Spoiler

Impartial referee GM. He was prepared for either eventuality, and the scene was primarily, in his mind, to let the characters role play and find out more about one another while the GM just sat back and watched.

But the Wizard asked (by note/off stage) whether he could figure out how to sabotage the conveyance in a manner they could likely fix with materials from the city – maybe that lighthouse. Then he made that stunning Knowledge check which, as the GM indicated, was a perfect check for him – not for the other players.

GM gets to sit through several sessions of equal parts of wilderness and city exploration and being criticize/bitched at by two of the players for railroading the party into exploring his irrelevant other planar wilderness and city. Until Wizard role plays a pang of conscience when a PC is in great danger, and confesses his actions to the other PC’s, thanks to a player pang of conscience watching the GM get crapped on because of his in character role play.

Apologies to the script writer from whom I stole and modified this setup. I suspect a few people might recognize it.

 

[chaochou]

Their first scenario saw them encounter a transport device that can cross the planes...

Who at the table who created this device? The GM? The players? And what do you mean by 'scenario'?

and they are returning to their home from the wrapup of their first story arc...

What's a story arc? Who created it, and how?

When Wizard makes a terrible roll and the conveyance is tossed across the planes.

When was it decided that a roll is required to operate the device and who got a say in that decision? Why is the wizard rolling, not the rogue or fighter? Are the potential outcomes discussed prior to these rolls? Who gets to say what happens?

Far from being home, the GM describes a wilderness outside, and in the distance on a plateau, what seems to be a city, with some kind of lighthouse tower.

Why doesn't the GM say "Nope, you're not where you'd thought you'd be. You're on totally the wrong plane. What can you see outside the device?"

The players set to discussion. Each frames what they want to do in the context of their character’s personality and background.

You use the word 'frame' there, but in your example the players aren't framing. The situation has been set. They are where they've been put and get to react.

Wizard makes a knowledge check... Wizard agrees to try to get them back... Wizard fires up the conveyance.... Wizard pokes around, makes another skill check... Good news, though, his [Wizard's] knowledge check indicates....

So this is specifically the Wizard's spotlight time?

Does the wizard propose that this is a time machine and make a roll to have that affirmed in play? Or does he ask if it's a time machine and make a roll, the outcome of which is controlled by the GM?

Good news? Who says what the Wizard's knowledge check indicates the lighthouse material is useful? The Wizard? The GM? The group?

This ties back to who created the lighthouse - one method of play would see the players create the lighthouse and then tie it's usefulness (or not) to their own goals in some way. Another sees the GM narrate the lighthouse and the players 'ask questions' about it (the answers to which give the GM the required tools to guide the players along). The two don't mix very well.

But the Wizard asked (by note/off stage) whether he could figure out how to sabotage the conveyance in a manner they could likely fix with materials from the city

Why not simply say 'I'm sabotaging the machine in a way I can fix' and then engage the resolution mechanics. Why does the player need the GMs permission to do this? Who's in control here?

Why not say this in the open so all the players can enjoy the subterfuge (even if their characters do not). Do these players not trust each other to make the game more fun?

I'm interested in the fact that the one time in this whole example it's made explicit that a player is attempting to take some sort of mild initiative they feel the need to a) ask the GMs permission and b) do it in secret.

Stupid powertripping GM forcing the Fighter and Cleric to explore his city with his contrived mechanical breakdown? Great GM ensuring the Wizard (and, to a lesser extent, Rogue) gets what he expressed an interest in, albeit with his contrived mechanical breakdown?

The hints are that the GM is in complete control here, irrespective of whether it meets the group's approval or not. However, as my questions illustrate in most cases there's simply no indication of what's happening between the people at the table.

 

[N'raac]

I'm going to formulate my answers as consistently with my source material as possible, on the assumption that each player controls, at a minimum, all important aspects of his or her character, including important and unusual possessions.

Who at the table who created this device? The GM? The players?

The device would then have been a part of the writeup of the wizard character, so he created it unilaterally, with whatever GM approval was required - we can say no such approval required if you wish - the players have carte blanche.

And what do you mean by 'scenario'?

Seriously? A gamer is asking me what a scenario is? OK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenario[/URL]]
[h=1]Scenario[/h]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A scenario (from Italian: that which is pinned to the scenery originating from the Greek word skēnē σκηνή^[1][2]) is a synoptical collage of an event or series of actions and events. In the Commedia dell'arte it was an outline of entrances, exits, and action describing the plot of a play that was literally pinned to the back of the scenery. It is also known as canovaccio or "that which is pinned to the canvas" of which the scenery was constructed.
Surviving scenarios from the Renaissance contain little other than character names, brief descriptions of action, and references to specific lazzi with no further explanation. It is believed that a scenario forms the basis of a fully improvisational performance though it is also likely that they were simple reminders of the plot for those members of the cast who were literate. Modern commedia troupes most often make use of a script with varying degrees of additional improvisation.
In the creation of an opera or ballet, a scenario is often developed initially to indicate how the original source, if any, is to be adapted and to summarize the aspects of character, staging, plot, etc. that can be expanded later in a fully developed libretto, or script. This sketch can be helpful in "pitching" the idea to a prospective producer, director or composer.
Other uses
The term "scenario" is also used for an account or synopsis of a projected course of action, events or situations. Scenario development is used in policy planning, organizational development and generally, when organizations wish to test strategies against uncertain future developments.
Scenarios are widely used by organizations of all types to understand different ways that future events might unfold. Scenario planning or scenario analysis is a complex business process related to futures studies.
In this sense, scenarios should not be used to speculate on what has happened in the past. According to the Forecasting Dictionary, a scenario is “a story about what happened in the future”. Vivid scenarios distort people's perceptions of the likelihood of the events they describe. Scenarios can therefore be used to overcome resistance to unpopular forecasts. Gregory and Duran (2001) ^[3] examine principles for the use of scenarios in gaining acceptance of forecasts.

In root cause analysis the scenario is the story of how an event played out. For example:

• The initial conditions that amount to an accident waiting to
• What disturbed the set-up to get an event into progress
• The additional developments that occurred to result in the final *The final situation.

I find the initial discussion pretty accurate - the framework around which the adventure occurs. The adventure itself - the fully improvisational performance - would be the game itself.

The term itself is commonly used to describe published modules, especially in the pre-Adventure Path days when the GM would plug these into his own games with such adaptation as appropriate to best fit with the players, characters, game world, etc. In fact, more GM's should consider the etymology of the word, which pretty much implies the exact opposite of simply running what is written.

What's a story arc?

Again, SERIOUSLY? OK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_arc[/URL]]A story arc is an extended or continuing storyline in episodic storytelling media such as television, comic books, comic strips, boardgames, video games, and in some cases, films. On a television program, for example, the story would unfold over many episodes. In television, the use of the story arc is much more common in dramas than in comedies, especially in soap operas. Webcomics are more likely to use story arcs than newspaper comics, as most web comics have readable archives online that a newcomer to the strip can read in order to understand what is going on. Although story arcs have existed for decades, the term "story arc" was coined in 1988 in relation to the television series Wiseguy,^[1] and was quickly adapted for other uses.

The application to RPG's seems pretty clear. In fact, I suggest this is what Hussar refers to in wanting to get to the point of the game quickly, before it wraps up. Too many campaigns he has been involved in have been cancelled mid-season, so the story arc never fully resolved, to his disappointment. Here, one short arc has been resolved, and the players and GM expected the characters to return home and await the start of the next arc. But the unexpected happened, so now we deal with that complication.

Who created it, and how?

The players and GM created and resolved it collaboratively in what we call a “Role Playing Game”, wherein the GM set those aspects of the scenario other than the protagonists, who were created by the players. The players direct the actions and efforts of their respective protagonists. Where success or failure (and/or degree of same) is in doubt, a randomizing resolution mechanism, commonly rolling of dice, is used in conjunction with rules/guidelines of the specific game, to adjudicate the results.

When was it decided that a roll is required to operate the device and who got a say in that decision?

The wizard’s player decided this in the creation of his character. The details of his character are under his control.

Why is the wizard rolling, not the rogue or fighter?

The wizard has defined the device as complex to operate, with the possession of arcane knowledge being the guiding factor to success or failure. He has intentionally decided that its operation is quite difficult, such that even he has little assurance of success. Lacking the Wizard’s level of knowledge and skill, success by another of the characters would be far less likely, but they could also attempt to operate the mystic conveyance.

Are the potential outcomes discussed prior to these rolls? Who gets to say what happens?

Once again, the wizard’s player has defined the potential outcomes, and has specified that a failed roll will typically activate the machine (certainly at his skill level, and potentially even for a person with no relevant skill taking his best guess), but that a failed roll will play havoc with the navigation, resulting in arrival who knows where. He has specifically chosen to empower the GM with the determination of where the conveyance arrives in the event of a failed roll, with the explicit statement that he wishes the results be random, even wildly so, and trusts the GM to use this power, explicitly granted by the player, to make the game more fun.

Why doesn't the GM say "Nope, you're not where you'd thought you'd be. You're on totally the wrong plane. What can you see outside the device?"

The Wizard specifically stated that his mystical conveyance incorporates scrying panels which permit those within to see what is outside the device. And, as noted above, he has specifically empowered the GM to determine the landing point (seriously, what does the GM do in the game you envision?)

You use the word 'frame' there, but in your example the players aren't framing. The situation has been set. They are where they've been put and get to react.

The PLAYERS have decided whether they wish to interact with this new environment. Each is now framing his response to have those PLAYER desires consistent with the CHARACTER’s personality. They control how their characters act and perceive.

So this is specifically the Wizard's spotlight time?c

Not sure where you get that from. He simply does not wish the other characters, and by extension their players, to be aware of his subterfuge and sabotage. The mystery is part of his enjoyment of the game. As well, as we see from the interplay between the players, they do not always agree as to what would be the most fun for playing out the game, and the wizard’s player has selected this approach to exercise some narrative control.

He trusts the GM to ensure that all the players get spotlight time in accordance with their preferences in the course of this exploration, later events or both.

Does the wizard propose that this is a time machine and make a roll to have that affirmed in play? Or does he ask if it's a time machine and make a roll, the outcome of which is controlled by the GM?

Perhaps the machine was initially established to be a time machine (a fact never shared with the other players) or perhaps this is the first the wizard has thought of it, and is using it to vary the scenario by removing the time pressures which might impede the other players from agreeing to his desire to explore this new environment. In the latter case, the GM sees no opposition to this added aspect, so he says Yes rather than rolling the dice.

Good news? Who says what the Wizard's knowledge check indicates the lighthouse material is useful? The Wizard? The GM? The group?

The wizard wants to find a way to sabotage the conveyance in such a way as to require exploration of the city. The GM has decided to roll the dice, rather than just say yes, as there is a conflict between the wishes of the wizard and those of other players. Between them, the GM and player determine that a success means he has a viable approach, which he and the GM flesh out between them.

This ties back to who created the lighthouse - one method of play would see the players create the lighthouse and then tie it's usefulness (or not) to their own goals in some way. Another sees the GM narrate the lighthouse and the players 'ask questions' about it (the answers to which give the GM the required tools to guide the players along). The two don't mix very well.

The GM threw out the description. The lighthouse was a simple reason the city would be visible from further away, and he has not established its use. However, either he or the wizard player then suggests that the magic to operate this device might use a common component in magical artifacts which the conveyance also uses, facilitating the sabotage, which that stellar die roll indicated the wizard has clearly determined how to carry out.

Why not simply say 'I'm sabotaging the machine in a way I can fix' and then engage the resolution mechanics.

This is basically what he has done. However, the player is interested in having his efforts fit seamlessly into the milieu the GM has offered up, so he asks the GM for his input on what may work. The player asked whether this was within his capabilities, within the rules of the game. The GM said yes, it is possible, but not automatic success.

Why does the player need the GMs permission to do this? Who's in control here?

The game is a collaborative effort, so control is shared between the GM and the players.

Why not say this in the open so all the players can enjoy the subterfuge (even if their characters do not). Do these players not trust each other to make the game more fun?

Perhaps they also find mystery and subterfuge fun, and find removal of all mystery detracts from the fun. I’ve commented in the past that I have no desire to have a player say at the table “My character has been betrayed several times in the past and, as a result, he has become secretive and distrustful of others. As a result, he is not telling your characters his true identity, and that is why he always keeps his face concealed.” I find it much more engaging to allow character background and personality to emerge through actual play than through a written narrative providing the player with information the character lacks. I did not need to know Vader was Luke’s father from the first appearance of the characters on the screen either, nor did I need Vader’s claim confirmed during the Cloud City duel. It is more interesting to find out as the characters do.

The players trust each other to make the game more fun to an extent sufficient that full disclosure is not required in order to maintain that trust. Just like Hussar and Pemerton trust the players will use their authority to fast forward a scene wisely and in the best interests of the game. However, at least two players (Fighter and Cleric) do not extend that trust to the GM, in the same manner Hussar, from his comments, does not. The Wizard player, however, extends that same trust to the GM.

I'm interested in the fact that the one time in this whole example it's made explicit that a player is attempting to take some sort of mild initiative they feel the need to a) ask the GMs permission and b) do it in secret.

a) He is engaging the GM to adjudicate success and failure, a primary responsibility of GM’s in most game systems.

b) The players like mysteries, so they often do things in secret. They do not wish to be burdened with the chore of keeping in-character and out of character knowledge segregated, and prefer to have only that knowledge their characters have, to the extent possible. They have charged their GM with responsibility for keeping OOC knowledge out of play.

The hints are that the GM is in complete control here, irrespective of whether it meets the group's approval or not. However, as my questions illustrate in most cases there's simply no indication of what's happening between the people at the table.

That is the conclusion Fighter and Cleric have reached, certainly. It is what I believe most players would believe with the initial information available to them (pre-spoiler). It seems crystal clear, however, that two players want to skip the city exploration, one very much desires to play it out, and the fourth is fine with whatever plays out. The GM’s desires are not expressed explicitly – he has no voice at the table. However, the players make their own assumptions, right or wrong. What did you assume before reading the spoiler?

 

[N'raac]

In a nutshell, two players wished to use their narrative authority to avoid the city exploration, an they were overridden. The sole difference between pre-spoiler and post-spoiler is who overrode their narative authority. Does it matter? Whose narrative authority should take precedence? In this instance, two players prefer to skip the exploration scene. One wants to play it out. Whose wishes take priority?

Let's make it more balanced. Fighter wants this scene skipped. Maybe we know from prior experience he is likely to "get shirty" unless he gets his way. Wizard wants to play out the scene, but does not want a confrontation with Fighter. Cleric Player is OK with either approach, but chooses "skip scene" because this is consistent with her character's backstory and personality (plus, she's getting a ride with Fighter, so having him get shirty will be extra painful for her). Rogue Player is similarly OK with either approach, but her character's personality and background don't really lean to either approach, so her character just goes along with the rest. Whose narrative authority takes precedence? The GM is explicitly not taking either side.

 

[JustinAlexander]

That geographic proximity makes other differences. The situation the players want to engage is (in) City B. The siege is a potential resource for the players to leverage in respect of doing stuff in City B. To use a semi-technical phase, the fictional positioning is completely different in the two cases:

* desert: until the GM introduces more content (per Hussar, "lays a trail of breadcrumbs"), the fictional positioning of the PCs does not give the players any capacity to leverage the desert in pursuit of their goal;

* siege: the fictional positioning of the PCs gives the players capacity to leverage the siege in pursuit of their goal, to be proactive and require the GM to respond to their plans (eg sneaking in under cover of bombardment).
​

The problem with this conversation is that you're ascribing properties to the desert/siege which aren't actually inherent. Nor does the phrase "geographic proximity" create the inherent properties you seem to think it does.

Depending on how it's used, the desert is both an obstacle and an opportunity for the PCs. The same is true of the siege. We can also hypothesize versions of the desert and versions of the siege which are neither obstacle nor opportunity. But claiming that the difference is geographical proximity is completely silly: It's precisely that attitude of focusing on superficial qualities which leads to the bad GMing Hussar was complaining about.

The actual distinctions of importance here are "interest" and "relevance".

Correct. That is the difference between what I am characterising as player-driven, and GM-driven, play.

The players provide the hooks. The players decide where the action will be. The GM responds to them. If the player can't see his/her hook in what the GM serves up, the GM hasn't done his/her job. S/he has not "gone where the action is".

This kind of black-and-white, "only one of us can be right" absolutism is not particularly useful in the real world. And this sort of player entitlement is the other problem I have with your posts: The idea that there shouldn't be any obstacles between you and your goal unless you explicitly give permission for that obstacle to exist is, at a fundamental level, a really immature attitude to have. It treats narrative the same way munchkins treat treasure.

 

[chaochou]

The game is a collaborative effort, so control is shared between the GM and the players.

But in this specific instance of play - the bit where the wizard and GM collude to keep everyone in this place - what input in this 'collaborative effort' did the Rogue, Cleric and Fighter players have?

When this example reaches the crunch, there's no sharing in sight. The wizard (who, according to how this is written, does not have the power to make their sabotage true) asked the GM for permission (who has that power) and it is granted.

Is that your idea of collaboration? What you've illustrated, intentionally or otherwise, is a simple heirarchy:

GM: Has complete authority

Wizard player: Requires GM permission to do anything with machine

Other players: Had to ask the wizard's permission to leave

Rogue, Cleric and Fighter just get to say meekly what their characters want. None of them, as written, are empowered to change what's happening. All the indications are that to do so would require the GMs permission. Then the GM is faced with the question you put to the reader. Who do I side with here?

It's no good paying lip service to 'collaboration' and 'shared control' when, as far as it's indicated, this instance of play features neither.

Seriously, what does the GM do in the game you envision?

Seriously? There's only so much typing I'm willing to do.

I ask questions: "Where are you? What does this place look like? Who do you know here? Who here wants your head on a pole? Where's the nearest place to here? Who lives there? Why did they kill your brother? Why did the machine go wrong? What do you need to fix it?"

My friends will create crazy stuff based on their desire to make this fun and character goals, dream up new relationships to make this place interesting to them, talk through what would be fun for them as players (even if it means pain for their characters). I mediate as necessary in that discussion. Mediate, not dictate, not veto, not control. Anything they want left as a mystery they say "We don't know that." Or they can reject things "It wasn't them that killed my brother."

But they don't need my permission to do anything, or to know anything. If something is not automatic they can engage the mechanics to do it or know it. They can say 'I'm fixing the machine'. They don't need to ask 'If they can'. They can also say "I've got a bad feeling the demon Arrrklr lives in that lighthouse. I owe him my soul, which could be a problem." My players are actually stupidly likely to say things like that.

When they fail at things, or run out of ideas, or have left some things vague, I get to create and mess around with them, with the demon Arrrklr, make failures dramatic or interesting and throw complications into the mix. Otherwise I listen, I watch, I ask lots of questions and I enjoy.

Going into the next session of the game I'm running the players are adrift in their spaceship after a nuclear explosion (which they caused) wiped their navigation systems (oops). They've SOSed some military types to rescue them. Next session starts with "So who did you SOS? Who's the commanding officer on that ship? How do you know him/her? Why did you try and have them court-martialled? Why has your navy got a secret base in this system? What did you steal from it?"

And so on, round all the players. It'll take fifteen minutes and we'll have the situation, the tensions, the aims and goals, the subplots and leverage and prices to be paid, clearly laid out between all of us.

None of which is paying lip service to collaboration. It is collaboration. None of which pays lip service to player control. It is player control. There's no 'scenario', no 'story arc', no secrets, no stuff prepared in advance. Just the characters, some dice, some beer and whatever our imaginations create that evening.

 

[N'raac]

OK

With no action yet taken by anyone, the Wizard's player wants to play out exploration of the distant city. The Fighter's player wants to shunt sraight back to home base. The Rogue and Cleric player are happy with either approach - game on!

So, applying your approach, chaochou, what happens next? Where does the game proceed?

 

[Manbearcat]

I ask questions: "Where are you? What does this place look like? Who do you know here? Who here wants your head on a pole? Where's the nearest place to here? Who lives there? Why did they kill your brother? Why did the machine go wrong? What do you need to fix it?"

My friends will create crazy stuff based on their desire to make this fun and character goals, dream up new relationships to make this place interesting to them, talk through what would be fun for them as players (even if it means pain for their characters). I mediate as necessary in that discussion. Mediate, not dictate, not veto, not control. Anything they want left as a mystery they say "We don't know that." Or they can reject things "It wasn't them that killed my brother."

But they don't need my permission to do anything, or to know anything. If something is not automatic they can engage the mechanics to do it or know it. <snip>

None of which is paying lip service to collaboration. It is collaboration. None of which pays lip service to player control. It is player control.

Precisely. In this session outlined above , I had very little to do with moving the game along once it began. I solicited their input, narrated the portions of the Transition Scene that they left open. I then solicited their input for how they were going to deal with the conflict and the game emerged accordingly. I introduced a scene bang that put pressure on the PCs and from that point, they dictate everything that happens on successes (in the narrative) which establishes content and dictates the context for what comes next. Only on failures would I introduce complications that affected the narrative and put new pressure on them (and sometimes I'll solicit their input for that). The players treated their Skills/Spells/Features/Practices as resources to be deployed to further their own success and to frame the narrative. They:

- Determine what content they do not want to engage with (they clearly signal that they want the initial trek through the badlands to be a Transition Scene by using the martial practices and rituals that they use...in the same way that Hussar signals it to his GM.).
- Create resources to deploy (spells, tools and equipment), or use their own in new ways, and then author the fiction entirely.
- If they would have been successful on either of their final two checks (Nature and History), they would have established content in the game-world by introducing terrain as an asset for themselves or as a complication for their enemies. They dictated the terms of narrative engagement; they lost so terrain emerged as complications/impediments for their goals.

When they lost, new conflict was framed that was thematically tied to the stakes of the initial scene (securing the idol and bringing it back to the village). Its very different from serial exploration/time accounting and procedural play that expects players to stay in actor stance and use their proficiencies as solely world-interaction devices for interfacing with the GM's pre-established content (instead of deployable resources that establishes the zoomed-in, high resolution content of the game-world during play).

 

[chaochou]

Why are you asking me? I thought I'd made it clear - you'd have to ask the five of us. When I run, finding out how the game proceeds is why we play. I don't need, or even want, to know that in advance.

The wizard's wants, the cleric wants, the fighter wants... this is just 'huh?'. Are you saying this is this due to:

a) a fundamental playstyle difference?
b) player-authored goals for the characters?

If it's (b) why would I need to be involved? I've already told you how I establish a situation where the players have all the authority and information they need to take action. So two of the characters are in a conflict. Great. Let them play it. See where it goes.

If this is D&D and I need a formal resolution system, maybe I give players 'argument HP' of WIS. Each 'round' they both get to state something and both get to react to the other. Both statement and rejoinders are now true. Previously established facts cannot be altered. Contested dice rolls using the 'skill' associated with the statement, winner does 2D6 + CHA dmg to the other argument. Reroll ties. Like this:

F: We'll never make it up the cliffs to that lighthouse (athletics) vs W: The scrolls speak of a secret path to the lighthouse guarded by unseen dangers (Arcana)

W: Anyway, the fuel we need for the ship is in the lighthouse (Diplomacy) vs F: But I've heard dark tales of the Mistress of the Lighthouse, a terrible demoness (Religion).

It's rough and ready, but it took two minutes to make that system up - an ultra-simple BW Duel of Wits hack and my friends would be so down with it I want to be there seeing what they'd say instead of typing. Even if you lose you get to add your own cool craziness to the situation. Towering cliffs, a secret guarded path and a terrible demoness. No fun there then.

But anyway, if it's (a) why is it my job to fix?

What I wouldn't do is set up a game whose central feature is that one player has a magic teleporting-plane-shifting-time-travelling Tardis which only they can work unless the other players were fully on board with being the Doctor's sidekicks. They agree that authority relationship between them, and if that wasn't cool at the outset I don't have a magic wand to walk into this pre-created mess and fix other people's dumb ideas.