How players can change their PCs' fictional positioning, and hence change the sorts of options open to them in action declaration, is a big difference in RPG systems. One way of stating my dislike of the use of secret backstory to adjudicate action declarations is that the players are subject to fictional positioning of their PCs that they are unaware of and can't (in any meaningful sense) control.
(What counts as meaningful obviously is highly context dependent.)
I can understand that. I just think that your use of the term "secret backstory" tends to include the idea that it is being used to thwart the players, but for many of us that may not be the case. It's more a case of campaign or world information that the players do not know, which is something that every game has. So how that information is put to use by the GM is the thing in question, more than simply the existence of such information.
No.
For me as a GM, one of the most important things is to settle on the framing of situations. This includes determining the right mix of elements that arise from or reflect past events, plus new elements that speak to the salient player/PC concerns. In this second category there are at least two subcategorise: stuff that emerges from things the players have previously made part of the fiction (eg a new member of a secret society that is part of a PC's backstory); new stuff that the GM introduces (eg a new NPC trying to hunt down members of the secret society).
(1) The renegade wastrel elf (in BW this is called a dark elf, but is not a drow in the D&D sense - more like Maeglin and Eorl in The Silmarillion). I introduced this character into the fiction as part of the narration of consequences of failure on a check to travel safely across the Bright Desert to the Abor-Alz. The navigating PC was the elven ronin, who has a Belief to always keep the elven ways, and so a renegade elf who fouls waterholes seemed fitting. (And I had just been re-reading The Silmarillion.)
I hope that the above exposition makes clear the difference between this being an elf and (say) an orc. The latter - whether or not it would have been good GMing (the same PC also has an Instinct to attack orcs when he sees them) - would have carried quite different thematic weight.
And having it be a dwarf would have been bad GMing, because nothing about any of the PCs would be spoken to by having the destination waterhole be fouled by a dwarf.
Okay, understood. Thanks for clarifying that.
I think putting meaningful choices before the PCs based on the players' stated desires for the character and for the game is important. I don't disagree with you in this regard; it's something I try to do in my games at almost every step.
(2) The yellow-robed leader of the goblin army, who - it turned out - was the advisor to the baron of the city the PCs ended up arriving at, and liberating from the threat of the goblin army, around low-to-mid paragon tier.
This character was first introduced as colour: another NPC told the PCs of a yellow-robed skulker hanging around ancient minotaur tombs. The tombs were significant for three reasons: (i) prior events had established that dwarvish culture had minotaur roots, and one of the PCs was a dwarf, with strong loyalties to the dwarvish clans and traditions; (ii) the minotaurs were the predecessor culture to the Nerathi empire, and one of the PCs was trying to restore the Nerathi civilisation; (iii) the tombs had some sort of connection to Orcus (the Raven Queen's arch-nemesis), and several PCs were Raven Queen devotees of varying degrees of fanaticism.
Dropping in the skulker sows a seed for future colour and framing: later on the PCs saw him fly off from a goblin fortress on his carpet (as I posted upthread, I think this was in the context of an infiltration skill challenge); and later on still they discovered that he was the baron's advisor, and that no one in the city new that he was actually a Vecna-cultist with various nefarious plans.
So when did you decide this yellow-clad skulker was a Vecna cultist? Was that the intention all along? Or did that arise because of the way the fiction took shape? So that when you first had him show up, you were not entirely sure who he was or what he was up to, but then later on, you decided (in response to the fiction) that a Vecna cultist would be the best option to go with?
This kind of goes with my idea of not being married to any ideas if a better one (that doesn't contradict what's been established) comes along. In a case like this, if it were my game, I'd probably have a good idea of who the skulker in yellow was when he was introduced, but I wouldn't commit too strongly to that so that if a better idea came along, I'd be free to go with that.
It's nevertheless the case that the action declaration is failing on account of the GM treating, as part of the backstory which contributes to fictional positioning and hence factors into adjudication, something that the players don't have access to as part of the framing of the situation.
I can understand your aversion to this....but I don't think I share the opinion that it is always bad. I think there are instances where it is perfectly acceptable. I do think that it can easily be abused, and that if the sole reason the GM uses it is to thwart the players or to force things to go a specific way, I'd consider that some poor GMing.
That's at such a level of abstraction I can't tell. When I am talking about (i), (ii) and (iii) I am talking about them operating as constraints at every moment of framing. One result of (ii) is that it shapes narration of failure, which therefore feeds into (i) and (iii) in framing new situations. I find it almost impossible to conceive of how that could operate over (say) 10 sessions of play and yet the outcomes and hence the framings still fit within the framework of a 100+ page AP.
I'd say that there are two ways that this can come about.
The first is that most APs, even ones that lean strongly toward the Railroad end of the spectrum, allow for some variance in player action, and they offer how to handle instances of this. Usually they only address this at times where such a thing is most possible, and then they usually only cover the most obvious of alternate paths (i.e. "if the PCs lose this fight, they are taken captive" or something similar). So it is possible for the players to pretty much stay within the constraints of the AP, or at least reasonably close enough to them for their game to be considered a straightforward exampled of "Tyranny of Dragons" or whatever AP it may be.
The second is that it's possible that the players don't have any desire for their characters other than to play the adventure presented to them. That they don't create personal goals for their PCs beyond the kind of traditional D&D type goals of accumulating experience and wealth. I think this one depends highly on the players and the style of play that they are used to. But even if they do throw in some basic motivations beyond the traditional ones...."I want to find my brother's killer" and stuff like that....the DM can easily incorporate these into the AP. "Turns out your brother was killed by the Wearers of Purple" or what have you.
Now, if by "running ToD" you mean taking bits from it and adapting them, shaping them etc so that, as your campaign unfolds, so that you use particular maps, NPCs etc in your game but the actual sequence, story etc is quite different - well, I can see that.
Just for the record, this is similar to elements of my campaign. I take bits and pieces....some small, some large...from published modules or products and incorporate them into my game. Usually they are very modified to fit with what our game has established and our style of play.
This is true, but (as far as I can see) has no implications for how action declarations should be adjudicated.
For instance, I run games where my desires are (as far as I know) in harmony with those of my players. That's why I use some techniques but not others.
Sure, I agree. That's kind of my point....that I feel you can largely achieve what you say you strive for without the mechanics having to support that goal. That's not to say it's simple, or that you don't have to tweak a few things in a game like 5E to achieve it. I'd also expect that having mechanics that feed into that goal certainly helps.
I was just kind of saying that, ultimately, there is perhaps more of a division of play style and play mechanics than may be obvious.
The first published RPG I know of that set out the sorts of techniques I prefer is Maelstrom Storytelling (1997). I learned of it around 2004 from an essay on The Forge, and some years later found a second-hand copy at my local game shop. I've never run it, but its advice, plus some ideas in its resolution mechanics, were helpful for me in running skill challenges. A version of the system is downloadable for free under the name
Story Bones.
I started running games in my preferred style back around 1987, but didn't have the same suite of resolution techniques that I'm now familiar with. I find it easier using those techniques (which is one reason why, though I still greatly admire it as a system, I would never run Rolemaster again).
That's more what I meant.....not so much mechanical game systems designed with this intent, so much as general GMing techniques that are aimed at player authorship and a less GM driven style.
Well, what do you think the drawbacks are?
I won't comment too much on BW or its mechanics, because my knowledge of the pretty much consists of what you've explained to me!
But I think that with a more player driven game, there are some trade offs that are made. I think that a story may lose cohesion. That need not be the case, and I am approaching this topic from my perspective of having a game with both GM driven material and player driven material. When I say lack of cohesion, I don't necessarily just mean the GM giving up control...although that certainly happens. But there can be a "too many cooks in the kitchen" effect. If each player is trying to drive the game toward their characters' wants and desires, then it could become a bit jumbled. Things can get pulled in many directions. This can be mitigated by both the GM helping to focus things a bit, and by players who are willing to share the spotlight and understand that the story will work best if some sense of narrative integrity is maintained. But then we're kind of attributing success of this approach to the GM and players being reasonable people willing to play together more so than any mechanical aspect of the game.
Also, we briefly touched on player buy in earlier....I don't recall if it was you or [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] who said that they didn't feel that a player driven game required any more or less buy in than other game types. And I don't really disagree with that...I get the point of it....but I do think that for many players, there is a real learning curve for this if they are already used to a more traditional method.
This is something I've faced in my game over the years. When I've tried to let the players have more control over the game, they didn't really know what to do. It's taken a lot of time to hone the game to where we are at these days...where they're comfortable with the approach, and I'm mostly comfortable in how I balance the two elements.
The one comment I will make on the BW game mechanics you've endeavored to explain to me is that they seem more focused on the fiction than the game, if that makes sense. Hence, the check being made to determine the presence of the vessel to catch the blood rather than some challenge to the character in question. And I can see the usefulness of that....I can understand the appeal of that. However, I don't know if the appeal of it is strong enough that I would want the entire game to play that way.
I'm sure that's an opinion that is limited by my knowledge of the game, but it's something I've experienced in other games.
