I believe that I picked the phrase up from one of the WotC designers. A "story element" is a particular entity/being that exists in the fiction - a god, a person, a trap, a room or buiding of a generic type, etc. The PCs are also story elements, although not ones whose deployment the GM typically controls.
To "use a story element" is to introduce some sort of event or situation into the shared fiction - say, an NPC trying to do something to another NPC, or to the PCs.
Burning Wheel illustrates very clearly the difference between stipulating that a particular story element will be part of the game, and actually using that story element in the context of framing a scene. Players have authority to do the first thing - for instance, by paying for Relationships at PC build, and by making successful Circles rolls during play. But the GM is the one who actually frames the scenes in which the NPCs in question occur.
The same distinction is at work in the siege/city case, though as the example is being discussed the division of authorial labour is less formally established: [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], in virtue of being invested in the city but not the desert, is stipulating that the city shall be the focus of play; the GM, though, is the one with the authority to determine the dramatic context in which it presents itself (say, as under siege rather than open for easy ingress).
It is the existence of this distinction that permits player co-authorship (whether formally or informally established) to coexist with surprise and non-pre-determined story.
The fact that [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], above, has repeatedly equated a GM's inclination to include a certain story element in the game (Kas, for instance) with the idea that some or other encounter is predetermined to be part of the game, suggests to me that the distinction I am making here is not being drawn.
That's not the wording that I used.
But everytime it is suggested that encountering refugees in the desert is no different from encountering the city under siege, an implicit assumption being made is that there is no difference between describing a situation which the players can't leverage for their known goals without first obtaining more backstory from the GM, and describing a situation in which the players can do so.
The difference is key, for instance, to classic D&D treatment of treasure and equipment. A player who spends character money to buy a sword at startup, for instance, is subsequently entitled to declar that his/her PC is making an attack with the sword. Whereas, notoriously, a player who is told by the GM that his/her PC has "discovered a carved stick among the rubbish in the ogre's lair" is required to obtain more backstory from the GM (eg by casting an Identify spell) before s/he can declare an attack with the wand.
The siege is a sword. The players know what it is, the PCs are fictionally positioned in respect of it, steps can be taken.
The refugees and/or nomads are a carved stick. The players can reasonably infer the GM expects them to be able to do something worthwhile with them, but until they extract more information from the GM (eg by making Insight checks, or History checks, or declaring PC actions of going up and talking to the refugees) they don't know how their PCs are fictionally postioned in respect to this potential resource, and hence can't take active steps to leverage it.
That neither [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] nor [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] appears to recognise this distinction, despite multiple attempts by others to articulate it upthread, beginning way upthread with Hussar's contrast between "following the GM's breadcrumbs" and a more player-driven approach, suggests to me that they approach RPGing quite differently from me.
Yes. The first is wondering what to do - the players resolve this via their own deliberations. The second is seeking more backstory information from the GM - the players can't resolve this via their own deliberations.
In the case of the siege, the players don't have to figure out "how to resolve the scene". They have to decide what to do with the siege - ignore it, exploit it, try to break it, whatever - and only then do we have some stakes set, and can we begin the process of action resolution.
In the case of the nomad/refugee encounter, the players don't have to figure out "how to resolve the scene" either. They have to first obtain more backstory from the GM, and then have to decide what to do with the NPCs - ignore them, exploit them, attack them, whatever - and only then do we have some stakes set such that the process of action resolution can begin.
The presence of an initial step in one case but not the other - the need to obtain more backstory information from the GM - marks the difference between the two episodes.
I don't know how significant I should regard it that in your description you cut straight from the GM describing a certain element within the fiction, to the players dealing with the information and figuring out how to resolve it - but the absence of any discussion of the bit where the players decide what to do, and hence set stakes, stands out to me.
In my experience all it takes for the GM to be surprised is for the players to be free to decide what it is that their PCs want out of a situation, and as a result to choose how they engage it and thereby to set their own stakes.
For instance, I was surprised that my players had their PCs swear (limited) allegiance to Kas. In an earlier episode of play, I was surprised that my players contracted with duergar slave traders to ransom the slaves for an agreed sum to be handed over in a neutral city in a month's time. And in the episode I described on the paladin thread, I was surprised that the two paladin players decided to spare a prisoner whom each was convinced deserved death for her crimes, because - through a somewhat convoluted process - one has promised on behalf of another, without that other's knowledge - that the prisoner would be so spared.
In none of these cases of surprise did the players have to have control over backstory or introduction of story elements. All that was required is that they be free to decide what they want out of the situation, and hence free to set their own stakes.
It's good to see that you don't believe in defaming other posters.
Last edited:
, also see below. 
