Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ilbranteloth]

I think that what you say here would be controversial among many D&D players.

At least as I have experienced conversations about these matters, many D&D players are not that concerned with, and even sometimes hostile to, actually esablishing at the table what is happening in the fiction when some mechanical event takes place.

And in fact I think big chunks of 3E/PF depend upon a lack of such concern - eg we have mechanical phenomena like +30 natural armour bonuses (which are double the armour bonuses granted by the most powerful of enchanted armours) and DC 60 locks, with no real attempt to establish what in the fiction these mechanical elements correspond to. Likewise eg Reflex saves that don't actually require moving (and so, by the rules, can be made while balancing on a spire surrounded by a pit of infinite depth), etc.

I think that 5e negates some of these issues (eg bonuses and DCs) via bounded accuracy, but not others (eg Reflex saves, action economy issues, etc). So I'm not surprised that you're getting some pusbhack from 5e-ers on your conception of how Vicious Mockery, Bardic Inspiration, etc work. (No one has yet mentioned how that would make, say, bards harder to play than fighters or even wizards, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that come up also.)

5e has a handful of disassociated mechanics (fighter's superiority dice when tied to maneuvers). While it's possible to describe what happens when they use the Trip Attack for example, my issue is explaining why the fighter routinely forgets how to trip people. Yes, there is no specific restriction that anybody can attempt to trip somebody, and that you can uses the same mechanic minus the superiority die, but there are a great many people that argue RAW only a fighter with this maneuver can attempt a trip, because otherwise it would invalidate the fighter.

In terms of viscious mockery I don't think everybody would agree that it's the words themselves that cause damage - it's the magic. It's the spell energy behind the words. The bardic inspiration would be the same thing.

As to whether the bard player has to spout insults, poetry, or song every time they use one or the other is up to the table and their style. Describing the exact nature of viscious mockery each time it's used would be the same as describing the exact way your fireball or magic missile looks each time you use it. Or each swing of your sword for that matter.

Sure, I know that a lot of DM's now describe each swing of the sword, and it's an approach I can't stand. First because I still see your attack roll as the one attempt that gets through their defenses among many, rather than the 1 swing per die roll approach that it seems many players/DMs equate. But also because it gets really old after a while, and either repetitive, or ever more absurd in a player's or DM's approach to describe the same thing that's happened a thousand other times differently. Instead we establish the fictional aspect of a given mechanic (spell, whatever) once, and then describe it when it's important. Otherwise we already know what it looks like in the fiction and can imagine that on our own.

Since I don't like disassociated mechanics, I've changed the way superiority dice and maneuvers work in our game. But once we understand how the mechanic relates to the fictional world, we don't have to consistently repeat it. Another example would be a short rest following a battle. We establish early on what the party does following a battle once they feel there is no remaining imminent threat - looting the bodies, healing, collecting ammunition, how they deal with the bodies, cleaning weapons, adjusting armor, a swig of water or wine, a snack, or whatever. Once we know what occurs following a battle, then it occurs after every battle unless otherwise changed. There is no need to repeat it over and over.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Huh? You never had to speak your wish, that wasn't a mechanic. You could easily say, "Bob wishes for some sandwiches," and that was fine. You never were required to say, "I, Bob, wish for some sandwiches." But, again, this is a tu quoque argument -- that other bad mechanics exist isn't a justification for this one.

Wish has pretty much always required you to specify what you ask for...well, not as much as I thought. The DMG doesn't have any additional commentary on wish. The PHB states that "the exact terminology of the wish spell is likely to be carried through. Later editions and articles have expanded this into a word game where the DM attempts to outwit the players based on how they specifically word the wish.

But, I agree with your fancy word. One poor mechanic doesn't justify another. Even if it's really, really hard to come up with a good mechanic.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sure....secret doors are fine as elements of story. However, you better believe that the author considers how they are introduced....not just having them show up because they would be convenient for the characters.

There are lots of times that secret doors have existed in adventures, stories, movies, whatever that had everything to do with story that I felt were wildly out of place because the only reason they were there was for story purposes. Traps are even worse.

Many secret doors, or alternate (but relatively easily created) exits exist solely to move onto the next part of the story. I find them cheap and ill-placed and it ruins my immersion of the medium.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Because it prevents players like me from ever using those mechanics. I will say what I intend my character to convey. I will provide a basic strategy which the character can be viewed as acting. But, I know I am not particularly articulate *edit* and social cues are somewhat beyond me */edit*. If a GM forces my skills into a game I usually tell them I plan to force their skills into my next game like using an axe for 15 minutes or running 100 yards in less than 15 seconds before their intent can be adjudicated in-game (actually I typically just leave the game though I really wanted to see one GM dance a minuet after he tried to force me to perform jumping jacks in Paranoia).

Yeah, as much as I've tried to speak in character via actual dialogue, I suck at it. I can describe what I am saying, but just don't have the acting chops to do it in the moment.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you're correct,

Don't know about BW, but the references to AD&D sound familiar.

Huh? You never had to speak your wish, that wasn't a mechanic.

The classic adjudication of the AD&D 1e Wish was to closely parse and twist the exact phrasing.

that's a horrible mechanic. I should never be forced to perform my character's actions to see them realized in game. This is akin to making the player of the fighter stand up and act out their attack routine before resolving it.

I couldn't easily agree more. I'm personally dead set against such 'player as resolution system' mechanics. Horrid stuff, limiting for no good reason.

Well, not for no reason, the idea is often to 'encourage RP' (conflating roleplaying with speaking in character). It's a frustrated thespian (another slanted label I like to toss out) thing.

So, this is a bit challenging, so stick with it and keep an open mind.

"If you don't want to be seen as stupid or bigoted, you must agree with me?"

Nothing here is meant to denigrate story now games or anyone's preferred style

If you feel the need to preface a diatribe against something with an assurance that's it's not, it probably is.

IDK if you really meant to do either of those things but I started reading your post, and it immediately made me very suspicious. But, I'm cynical, I project that sort of thing a lot. ;(

Story Now games are inherently built on Illusionism. While the standard definition (which I'm keeping)

So, 'Story Now,' and 'Illusionism' are both terms hatched in the catty environment of the Forge, among it's many convenient labels and theories that grew out of deeper and deeper examination of the false Role vs Roll dichotomy that consumed so much bandwidth in the 90s. Personally, I find the vast majority of usages of Forge terminology to be for nothing more nor less than denigrating a game or style other people like, or building up one that you like, even though it has little to recommend it.
That's my biased perception of the Forge, there, out in the open.

That said, the definitions of 'Story Now' and 'Illusionism' make the two pretty fundamentally incompatible. Illusionism is the probably-intended-to-be-pejorative label applied to a legitimate GMing technique, in which you move the story/campaign/action/whatever in a desirable (to you, the GM, it's very specific, that way) direction, in spite of the players taking actions that'd screw it up, /without tipping off the players that you're doing so/. If you're not good at illusionism or don't even try, it's just "GM Force," which is the same thing, except the players get to grumble about it.

As best as I understand it, in 'Story Now' the GM isn't meant to have any such agendas to 'Force,' so, by definition, doesn't have the opportunity to engage in illusionism.

Convenient, that.

I could see making a case that games that wrap themselves in the 'Story Now' label don't really meat the definition, or that the Forgite term is pernicious nonsense in the first place, but if you're going to stick with their definitions, you can't make the case that 'Story Now' is based on Illusionism, because, by those definitions, the two are antithetical.
points to specific instances, and works well, Story Now games act

Can I say that it's my intent as a player matters when nothing but my intent can matter? This is a subtle issue, somewhat related to the 'when everyone is special' chestnut.

Like in the Incredibles, yeah, that's a point the insane villain makes. ;P The difference I see, though, is that it's about leveling, making everyone the same, when the Story Now concept doesn't go there, it doesn't making every one or every thing the same, it focuses on specific things, just things chosen by the players, rather than things chosen by the DM (which if the DM /makes/ the game focus on them, in spite of player decisions, is Forgite 'DM Force,' and if he successfully hides that he's doing so, 'Illusionism').

when the players first see the skulker there's one overriding fact about the skulker's motivation: it will hinge on what the players have declared as their intents.

Sure, because otherwise it wouldn't be worth engaging. In, I guess, the 'Story Never' style, you investigate the skulker, find out he has nothing to do even tangentially with anything you're concerned with, shrug, and never get that game time back. Then, you proceed to go searching for things that don't exist and uncovering things you don't care about.

Now, that's not necessarily bad (or even a little be bad), but it does invoke Illusionism because, from the player side, it appears as if your decisions matter.

Not the definition of illusionism. Arguably an 'illusion,' in the same sense that any game of imagination may be, but not the specific Forgite slanted label in question.

I'm about to start playing a BW campaign. I posted some details of my PC upthread - he is Faithful and hence I will have to be speaking prayers. I don't see it as horrible. I'm looking forward to it.

There is something more demanding about being obliged to speak my character's prayers.

There's certainly something more demanding about it. But if you're not good at extemporizing 'good' (in the GM's judgement, I assume) prayers, you're not going to be able to play the character effectively, right? That doesn't sound like a great mechanic, as a mechanic, even if the way it encourages speaking in character is desirable for reasons of other preferences....

That means that you wouldn't like that sort of game. But I don't see why that makes it a horrible mechanic.

Because it closes off player options. You can't play a character too different from yourself. Because it's essentially imbalanced (it favors players who have the talents the resolution system requires), and even innately unfair (because evaluating the player's performance generally rests entirely on the GM, inviting bias).

I am pretty bad at tactical wargaming. Does that mean that tactical resolution systems in RPGs are "horrible mechanics" and that non-tactical systems like HeroWars/Quest simple contests are the only acceptable ones?

If it means you can't play a tactically adept PC because of that, yes. If, OTOH, the system has ways of modeling such abilities without requiring the player providing it, not so much.

I know some people who are bad at probability and hence can't really use complex dice mechanics effectively. Does that make those "horrible mechanics".

It's a strike against them, especially if the rewards for that form of system mastery are excessive.

I'm terrible at bluffing and lack the patience necessary, and so am a ridiculously easy mark playing poker. Does that make poker a horrible game, or just one to which I'm not well suited?

It makes playing a hand of poker a horrible resolution system for an RPG.

I guess my feeling is that different games invoke different skills and inclinations, and it's not the measure of a "horrible mechanic: that it's not universally enjoyed.

Sure. Functionality, clarity, playability, balance, basic fairness - lacking enough of those can make a mechanic horrible. Player-as-resolution-system mechanics can easily lack every positive quality a mechanic should have.

A mechanic in a role-playing game that forces play-acting is actively uninviting to an entire swath of potential players. That you don't find it so really isn't an argument.

Many things are unimviting to many people. The whole of D&D is obviously uninviting to some - perhaps many - potential players, in so far as there are people who like fantasy and like games yet don't play D&D.

I don't think that's the measure of a "horrible mechanic".

I'm not sure I've ever seen a tu quoque (essentially "other people do it, too" used a justification for something) argument for a mechanic. That's a new one.

Can't say I haven't seen it before. Maybe not as much as appeals to popularity, a favored defense against all sorts of criticisms, especially when defending D&D, which is, afterall, the #1 RPG. And, of course, appeals to un-popularity like 'such-and-such is a horrible mechanic because lots of people wouldn't like it.'

 

[tomBitonti]

If the GM is using the map basically as a sketch or prompt for narrating on the fly, and it is not a source of secret backstory used for adjudication purposes, then redrawing it on the fly is not illusionism. It's just establishing the shared fiction, and doing so while taking some inspiration from prior brainstorming (encoded in the map).

Additional text omitted.

I've been trying to place these ideas within examples which help to illuminate the several different perspectives:

(1) Players are exploring a fixed map. There are no random map elements: Creatures are in their specified location (with modifications due to schedules or alarms, but almost entirely predetermined). There are no wandering encounters: All of the creatures in the locale are exactly specified, as are the creature motivations and treasure.

(1.1) The same as (1), but with detail limited to a restricted selection of elements. For example, fixed encounters in outdoor areas, where the area detail is left undetermined. Or, say, when exploring a vast unmappable Space Hulk, again, with preset encounters placed according to a GM outline.

(2) A fixed map but with substantial random elements, most commonly, encounters and treasure. Player driven but to a slight degree, with, say, encounters generated according to whether the players are hasty or noisy. This is a lot of standard D&D of all editions, and, I am thinking, this mode predominates "mainstream" play.

(2.1) Players are exploring a random map with all elements randomly determined. However, all elements are generated based by a purely random process (say, a table lookup) which is not modifiable by the GM or by players except to prevent impossible placements. Player driven to a slight degree, as what area is generated next is according to player decisions. But, I'm thinking, most folks do not categorize this as player driven.

(3) Players are exploring a random map. Elements are added per the players and GM according to expressed interest, with some random modification of the results, and some modification of the elements based on the use of limited GM and player resources. This is more "indie" style -- from my limited perspective, which is very much with the more traditional style of D&D.

(3.1) Players are exploring a random map. Elements are added as in (3). Encounters, including the motivations of NPC actors, is also set or modified according to player and GM interest, again, possibly modified by the GM and players spending limited resources.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That's the problem, for narrativistic play, of a certain sort of shared narration. But it's not the reason for inventing RPGs that follow the "standard narrativistic model".

There is no need to speculate on this matter. Eero Tuovinen is not inventing the "standard narrativistic model".

Since you kept referring to Eero Tuovinen's Standard Narrativistic Model, that's what I searched. His article was not talking about railroading. I'll certainly be happy to read the Forge article.

Narrative Tools

... The whole premise of role-playing is the freedom the players have to take their characters in whatever direction they want. It is important to maintain this free will, and not lead the players with a heavy hand down a course only the narrator controls. Though the narrator may tell a good story, it loses the rich creative spirit of role-playing if the players have little say in what happens.​

I agree 100%.

Part of the significance of this passage is that it also shows that the "standard narrativistic model" is not at all hostile to "shared authorship" as such. The player has freedom to decide what the character thinks is right and decides to do. The GM cannot wield authority over what the characters are supposed to want, which therefore means the GM has no authority over how conflicts are supposed to turn out.

I don't see how you read this into that statement though. When referring to shared-authoring, I'm specifically talking about the types that Eero was talking about in his article - backstory and setting, and more specifically that sort of shared authoring during the game. His examples also specifically imply that there is secret backstory that has great value (the villain is your father, the whole thing is a hoax, etc.).

Eero Tuovinen makes the same point in describing the "standard narrativistic model" (I have bolded the key phrases):

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 . . . once 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.​

The players, not the GM, establish concrete characters and character needs. Thus, when the GM "goes where the action is", the GM is following hooks provided by the players.

And the GM (that secret backstory/setting stuff again).

And,

In BW character building, elements of backstory that players can establish include significant components of the setting (eg, just confining myself to the events in the OP, the existence of the sorcerous cabal and of the balrog-possessed mage were both established by a player in building his PC).

But he also specifically advocates for secret backstory/setting, even if he's not calling it that.

Eero Tuovinen is objecting only to one particular aspect of shared narration, namely, the one he describes when he says that narrativistic RPGing

works, but only as long as you do not require the player to take part in determining the backstory and moments of choice. If the player character is engaged in a deadly duel with the evil villain of the story, you do not ask the player to determine whether it would be “cool” if the villain were revealed to be the player character’s father. The correct heuristic is to throw out the claim of fatherhood if it seems like a challenging revelation for the character, not ask the player whether he’s OK with it . . .

I don’t find it convincing how lightly many GMs seem to give away their backstory authority even when playing games that absolutely rely on the GM’s ability to drive home hard choices by using these same powers.

It is the GM's job to frame scenes, introduce complications, and narrate consequences. Eero Tuovinen is arguing that, given this, certain techniques don't fit with the model he is describing. But avoiding those techniques isn't the rationale of the model.​

Well, to begin with, his premise to me seems to be that shared-authoring of backstory and setting in general should stop when the game commences. Since I hadn't read any of the Forge stuff, his model seems to very concisely address all of his earlier commentary on shared authoring during the game, which he spent quite a bit of the page discussing, and covered several different types of it as well.

So to me, based on all the evidence I had, was that was why the model was written, and that he had in fact written it since you were calling it the Eero Tuovinen Standard Narrativistic Model.

I don't know how, but you've done it again. Here is the quote:

The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design . . .​

The holy grail, as he puts it, is that (i) the player helps create an amazing story, and does so (ii) with nothing but choices made in playing his/her PC.

And as far as I can tell, that's what I said, and what I agree with 100%.

The reason this is able to happen is that, prior to play, the player establishes a PC with clear dramatic needs, and that, once play begins, the GM frames scenes and establishes consequences in a manner that "goes where the action is" ie in accordance with dramatic needs.

OK, this is different. And while perhaps in this model this is true, it's not required. It's entirely possible for them to be playing with pregenerated characters and still use this model. Just as improvisational theater can start with predefined characters. So while the PC has clear dramatic needs, the player doesn't have to be the one to establish them.

I'm not confused about the model. It informs basically all of my RPGing.

No. You are missing or ignoring the bits where (to quote) "the players [establish] concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes" and that these player-authored dramatic needs are what the GM follows in framing scenes.

Again, the player doesn't have to establish or author all or any of the concrete characters, situations, and backstory.

You are also not addressing the various possibilities in action declaration. For instance, declaring "I look for a vessel!" or "I search for a secret door!" is the player playing his/her PC. How do we determine, though, whether or not that attempt succeeds? If the GM simply narrates failure on the basis of secret backstory ("Sorry, there's no vessel"; "You search, but find no secret doors") then how is that an instance of (to quote) the "process [of] choices lead[ing] to consequences which lead to further choices"? Or of the GM "going where the action is"?

I've already stated I disagree with his implication that the GM must "go to where the action is" and always a "process [of] choices lead[ing] to consequences which lead to further choices" etc.

One way you can determine whether the attempt succeeds is that they make a skill check of whatever nature. Even if it is in fact the basis of secret backstory (that there is no secret door there), then it also naturally leads to further choices. That is, anything else other than finding a secret door there.

Why should I provide alternative choices for them? Why should I limit their choices from literally almost anything to the 1, 2 or 3 options I toss at them? If they are searching for Smaug's lair, and I've described the terrain, they have their map and their text, I've told them about the bird, and they fail to put the pieces together, why should I provide another way for them to get in? Perhaps, just perhaps, these aren't the fabled heroes to save the day. Maybe they have to find another way in.

Maybe the real story isn't that they need a secret door to enter the lair of the dragon, it was only what was needed to set their path in that direction. To inspire the dwarves to reclaim their lost homeland, no matter the obstacles.

How do we find out? By seeing what the characters do after they fail to find the secret door. For me to provide my solutions robs the players of the opportunity to find theirs.

That is not to assert that the BW/MHRP approach is the only way to handle these sorts of action declarations. DW does it differently. So does HeroWars/Quest. But no game that is interested in providing an experience that resemble Eero Tuovinen's "holy grail" is going to advocate that the GM simply draw a map and key in advance of play, and then respond to those sorts of action declarations simply by reading off those notes. Whatever sort of play experience that is going to provide, it is not an instance of Eero Tuovinen's "holy grail"!

Once again you seem to have missed or ignored the fact that the players are the one's who establish those dramatic needs. But - for the very reason you have been quoting and apparently agreeing with, namely, that it is not satisfying for the player to frame his/her own conflict - it is not the players' but the GM's job to put these needs under pressure by framing scenes.

Here is the quote once again:

"The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design."

There is nothing whatsoever that says the players must establish the dramatic needs. Nor that the DM has to provide dramatic needs. It only says that "he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character."

That's it. He makes decisions as his character. In fact, it doesn't even require a GM at it's core. The "holy grail" as defined in this sentence (and one I agree with) is that the players can essentially experience being that character. If it's through a computer game, some sort of complex randomized system, or with a GM in a defined game.

The rest of his (or whoever wrote it originally) model is an opinion/model of how he or others think is a good way to achieve this holy grail.

I have not missed or ignored the "fact" that they players establish that, because it is not a requirement. It might be a requirement in the games you play, but for the players to make "nothing but choices made in playing his character" all they need to know is who the character is. If they are playing a Star Wars game, and they are Luke Skywalker, then they will be making choices as Luke Skywalker. Luke's character, his motivations, his backstory have all been authored by somebody else. But the player can still "create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character."

To use a metaphor, one could say that the players provide the material - the thematic content, the dramatic needs - but the GM provides the form - the concrete scene that puts those needs and that theme to the test.

I like this metaphor, but disagree with the "puts those needs and that theme to the test."

If the GM does not do that, then either the players have to frame their own scenes or there won't be any scenes. If the players frame their own scenes with a free hand, then you get the very problem that Eero Tuovinen is describing. And if - as in classic dungeoncrawling D&D - they frame their own scenes using whatever material the GM has provided them with (and notice how that is an exact reversal of roles from the "standard narrativistic model"), then they have every incentive to minimise the pressure in those scenes (eg by searching for and disarming traps, sneaking about, avoiding needless conflict, etc). Which, whether or not it makes for fun play, does not generate story at all.

There are more than two choices. The third is that the scenes are just that, scenes. Or to put it a different way, scenery.

I'm Luke Skywalker. I'm going to save my Dad. I want my friends to be safe. I'm on some stupid forest moon, and want to get from here to there.

DM: You spot several stormtroopers ahead, with speeder bikes. Not putting any need or theme to the test yet.

Luke: Have they spotted us?

DM: Doesn't look like it.

Luke: Great, no need to cause any trouble, we'll go back a mile, and circle about two miles to the east and hopefully not find any more.

Not a lot of dramatic framing going on. Nothing that's really putting those needs or theme to the test. Nor are they framing the scene themselves. He's just making a decision based on what is present in front of him.

Whether it's fun or not is subjective. But it does create story.

I think it is important to be clear on what Tuovinen means. He is not pioneering the terminology of "scene framing" in the RPG context. By "framing a scene" he means something in the neighbourhood of the "boxed text" in a module. Here is how Marvel Heroic RP describes the process (pp 33-35):

As the Watcher

GM: , framing every Scene is your responsibility . . . A Scene ends when the central conflict or situation is resolved; this means you need to have a sense of what the Scene is about as you frame it. . . . If you’re the Watcher, you get things started by establishing who is present in a Scene and where. This is called framing the Scene, and it’s your chief responsibility in the game . . . Once you frame a Scene as the Watcher, it’s time to present the challenge to the players. . . . As a player, you now have the core situation - or at least the implication of one - laid out in front of you for this Scene. It’s time to drop into character, think about what your hero would do in this situation, and perhaps talk it over with the other players.

GM: Tuovinen is including "presenting the challenge" in his account of "framing the scene" - and you can see how, in the MHRP text, after the description of the GM's role in framing (including presenting the challenge) we then get the player-side description of the "standard narrativistic model": the player drops into character and responds to the situation that has been presented by the GM. How the scene resolves is not up to the GM. That's a function of the players' action declarations for their PCs, and the outcomes of those action declarations in accordance with the resolution mechanics.

GM: Yes, how the scene resolves is not up to the GM. But how the scene ends is. My discussion on framing doesn't really have to do with Eero's definition one way or the other. My examples were to show that how you frame the scene - where the scene starts, and also where it ends, along with what information you choose to include and how, has an impact on the story. And that anytime you (as a GM) skip from one scene to another, especially if you are trying to interpret where the story is going, you run the risk of taking the story away from the players. If for no other reason, than the players don't get to decide anything about what they do in the intervening time. To quote Tuovinen, 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.​ None of these games includes a rule that just allows the GM to decide how things turn out! And I never said there was. I said that the DM can have an impact on the story on deciding where the scene ends. In my example, the situation was resolved - the players escaped the slavers and escaped the caverns. But by framing the next scene with the whole group ready to hunt down the slavers, I made a whole bunch of assumptions - starting with the one that the players would stick together. By PCs do you mean players? Yes. In any event, from your description it is very hard for me to form any clear judgements, because eg I don't know anything about how scene 2 relates to dramatic needs established by the players, nor how its framing follows from consequences generated by the resolution of actions declared in scene 1. The dramatic need of the first scene was to: 1) Escape the slavers 2) Survive 3) Find a way out of the caverns The dramatic purpose, as defined by the DM was: 1) To provide a reason for the players to be together (shipwreck) 2) To provide a reason to stay together (survive - escape too, although one of them could have used another as bait or barter so that might have backfired). However, depending on the DM and what he reads into the play of the first scene, along with whatever prewritten, prethought, or improvised thought, the second scene was framed with the intention to keep the players together and to hunt down the slavers. It might have been directly taken from the PCs actually commentary about how "they'll stop the slavers" and similar. But had the scene been allowed to continue beyond the cave, things might have gone in a very different direction. For instance, in my 4e game the PCs were tricked by a group of undead spirits into coming close (the spirits were disguised as refugees huddled around a campfire), and then the undead - who had been conjured by a goblin shaman - attacked the PCs and defeated them. The PCs regained consciousness in a goblin prison cell. That is not "taking control of the story away from the players" - rather, it is "establishing consequences as determined by the game's rules" - in this case, the rules dealing with what happens when a character is reduced to 0 hp. And I wouldn't invoke the game's rules at all when describing that scenario. They were just captured. Unless your rules specifically say that "when a character is reduced to 0 hit points they go to jail (and directly to jail)." But, I'd also be interested in knowing how you were describing the combat. Because in my campaign knocking somebody unconscious happens when you're trying to knock somebody unconscious. If you're reduced to 0 hp you are stunned (in shock), and lose consciousness only after you fail your first death save. And at that point you're dying. If the goblins were attacking to capture, that would have been relatively obvious since they wouldn't have been stabbing them with swords. I hate the rules that say you can decide on the final blow that you just knock them unconscious instead of killing them. You have to make that decision before you stab them with your sword. Marvel Heroic RP has a rule whereby the GM can spend 2d12 from the Doom Pool to end a scene and narrate a resolution consistent with the current state of things. I did this in my first session: so the PCs who had mostly beaten up the bad guys at the Smithsonian got finish their mopping up off-screen; but in the aerial struggle between War Machine and Titanium Man, I narrated that War Machine, encased in energy rings by Titanium Man, fell to the ground somewhere in Florida, while Titanium Man was able to fly back to his secret base in Khazakstan. Again, that is "establishing consequences as determined by the game's rules". The players now do their best to take steps to ensure that the Doom Pool doesn't build up to 2d12, so that they can avoid this happening again. That makes sense as "determined by the game's rues" and while I understand the rules, since part of many superhero games is specifically to emulate the storyboard style of comics (or at least the way people play them), it's not a rule I'd like or use. This relates to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s notion of "Walled Off Gardens". The idea of "consequences as determined by the game's rules" generally opens upon the possibility that the players (and their PCs) won't get what they want. The flip side of that is that the GM gets to narrate stuff that is adverse to those wants. Exactly how this is handled will vary from system to system, but it might include waking up in a goblin prison, or being defeated by Titanium Man who escapes back to Khazakstan. I agree that people may get what they don't want. And while the rules determine that (if for no other reason than the DM gets to describe what happens), I prefer for the action in the game to be dictated by the fiction, that is I don't like rules such as "spend from the Doom Pool to end the scene" or player action dice that allows them to write the scene. I prefer the game to be led by the fiction and supported by the rules. I think you are misunderstanding the use of the word "action". Eero Tuovinen does not say that scenes should be framed around the action. He says the following: One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to . . . frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is)​ The GM's job is to frame scenes around dramatic needs. This is then glossed by way of a slogan: "go where the action is". When, in my BW game, I told the player that he (as his PC) could see his brother across the crowd at the Hardby docks - for the first time in around 16 years, since they fled their tower that was under attack from orcs - that was going where the action is ie framing in accordance with dramatic need. As far as the owlbear moment is concerned - if that is the sort of character development you want in your game, then I don't understand why you would wait until a random encounter brings it about. So whereas you seem to think you're drawing some sort of contrast between the "standard narrativistic model" and your owlbear experience, in fact the whole point of the model is to generate that sort of experience consistently throughout play. That's why Luke Crane, in the BW books that I've quoted upthread, talks about characters changing in unexpected ways. Because things will happen that will provoke choices, including hard choices, and the way the consequences of those choices unfold will change the players' understanding of who his/her PC is. Well, that's really the crux of it to me. First, not every scene, as far as I'm concerned, needs to be dramatic. The owlbear scene was just a scene. They were claiming an inheritance, an unfinished, partially damaged castle. The owlbear had chosen to nest there. I wasn't expecting it to provide some sort of great character development, it just did. It also happened to be the home of a werebear (who to this day they still think is a druid) whom they befriended, a result that happened largely because of the owlbear encounter. What I love to watch is how the story progresses solely by the actions and decisions of the characters. Normal, every day characters. A farmer kid that's out playing "ranger" with his buddies and stumbles across an ancient Netherese tomb. They've all been trained in basic martial skills to help defend the village, and they (probably naively) don't entirely understand all the risks. It's just an old tomb. So they explore. That's it. See where it leads. Not some big dramatic story arc, and particularly not one where I have to keep coming up with moments each time the dice tell me to according to dramatic needs or provoke thematic moments, or their character's needs or motivations. Sometimes things will. But much of life is just...life. Yet each little decision you make along the way has an impact on your future and who you are. I found Eero's (or whoever's) analysis very interesting. Although I disagree with (and pointed out where and why) that it had to be that way to accomplish the same goal. Certainly there are games that are designed around that model quite closely. But I still feel (and know, from my own experiences), that to have an amazing story you don't have to have all of the elements he prescribes. Bits and pieces undoubtedly exist in how I run games. But I've had players have amazing experiences playing a pregenerated character, and even those that have taken over other player's characters when those players left the game (and they played them very true to those original characters). The reason I distinguish framing from framing is because it's a term that is used frequently, and even though there is a definition that is used by folks "in the know" for the rest of us it has quite different meanings. My objection, no not really objection, just point is that tight framing and certain other framing techniques can be used to go as far as railroading the game. When playing with groups that want an epic story, and an epic feel, I use tighter framing and drive the story quite a bit at times. That's the kind of game they wanted. But most of the time I provide much (most) of the backstory and setting, and they provide the majority of the story. I provide a teeny amount, through the actions of the NPCs and such. Perhaps it's because I'm not a great story-teller. I can come up with schemes, plots, tie together a world full of events. But an interesting plot, with characters and in particular dialogue. Not a chance.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Don't know about BW, but the references to AD&D sound familiar. The classic adjudication of the AD&D 1e Wish was to closely parse and twist the exact phrasing.

I couldn't easily agree more. I'm personally dead set against such 'player as resolution system' mechanics. Horrid stuff, limiting for no good reason.

Well, not for no reason, the idea is often to 'encourage RP' (conflating roleplaying with speaking in character). It's a frustrated thespian (another slanted label I like to toss out) thing.

"If you don't want to be seen as stupid or bigoted, you must agree with me?" If you feel the need to preface a diatribe against something with an assurance that's it's not, it probably is.

IDK if you really meant to do either of those things but I started reading your post, and it immediately made me very suspicious. But, I'm cynical, I project that sort of thing a lot. ;(

So, 'Story Now,' and 'Illusionism' are both terms hatched in the catty environment of the Forge, among it's many convenient labels and theories that grew out of deeper and deeper examination of the false Role vs Roll dichotomy that consumed so much bandwidth in the 90s. Personally, I find the vast majority of usages of Forge terminology to be for nothing more nor less than denigrating a game or style other people like, or building up one that you like, even though it has little to recommend it.
That's my biased perception of the Forge, there, out in the open.

That said, the definitions of 'Story Now' and 'Illusionism' make the two pretty fundamentally incompatible. Illusionism is the probably-intended-to-be-pejorative label applied to a legitimate GMing technique, in which you move the story/campaign/action/whatever in a desirable (to you, the GM, it's very specific, that way) direction, in spite of the players taking actions that'd screw it up, /without tipping off the players that you're doing so/. If you're not good at illusionism or don't even try, it's just "GM Force," which is the same thing, except the players get to grumble about it.

As best as I understand it, in 'Story Now' the GM isn't meant to have any such agendas to 'Force,' so, by definition, doesn't have the opportunity to engage in illusionism.

Convenient, that.

I could see making a case that games that wrap themselves in the 'Story Now' label don't really meat the definition, or that the Forgite term is pernicious nonsense in the first place, but if you're going to stick with their definitions, you can't make the case that 'Story Now' is based on Illusionism, because, by those definitions, the two are antithetical.
points to specific instances, and works well, Story Now games act

Like in the Incredibles, yeah, that's a point the insane villain makes. ;P The difference I see, though, is that it's about leveling, making everyone the same, when the Story Now concept doesn't go there, it doesn't making every one or every thing the same, it focuses on specific things, just things chosen by the players, rather than things chosen by the DM (which if the DM /makes/ the game focus on them, in spite of player decisions, is Forgite 'DM Force,' and if he successfully hides that he's doing so, 'Illusionism').

Sure, because otherwise it wouldn't be worth engaging. In, I guess, the 'Story Never' style, you investigate the skulker, find out he has nothing to do even tangentially with anything you're concerned with, shrug, and never get that game time back. Then, you proceed to go searching for things that don't exist and uncovering things you don't care about.

Not the definition of illusionism. Arguably an 'illusion,' in the same sense that any game of imagination may be, but not the specific Forgite slanted label in question.


There's certainly something more demanding about it. But if you're not good at extemporizing 'good' (in the GM's judgement, I assume) prayers, you're not going to be able to play the character effectively, right? That doesn't sound like a great mechanic, as a mechanic, even if the way it encourages speaking in character is desirable for reasons of other preferences....

Because it closes off player options. You can't play a character too different from yourself. Because it's essentially imbalanced (it favors players who have the talents the resolution system requires), and even innately unfair (because evaluating the player's performance generally rests entirely on the GM, inviting bias).

If it means you can't play a tactically adept PC because of that, yes. If, OTOH, the system has ways of modeling such abilities without requiring the player providing it, not so much.

It's a strike against them, especially if the rewards for that form of system mastery are excessive.

It makes playing a hand of poker a horrible resolution system for an RPG.

Sure. Functionality, clarity, playability, balance, basic fairness - lacking enough of those can make a mechanic horrible. Player-as-resolution-system mechanics can easily lack every positive quality a mechanic should have.

Can't say I haven't seen it before. Maybe not as much as appeals to popularity, a favored defense against all sorts of criticisms, especially when defending D&D, which is, afterall, the #1 RPG. And, of course, appeals to un-popularity like 'such-and-such is a horrible mechanic because lots of people wouldn't like it.'

I dislike fisking, in general, as I find it impedes discussion and turns things into a point by point. That said...

1) the caveats weren't lampshading, but were meant to provide assurances that I actually wasn't trying to insult a playstyle. I'm much more interested in frank discussion that takes the bad in with the good and recognizes the underlying values at play, which can be easily taken as trying to insult.

b) Story Now vs Illusionsim: you're absolutely right that those definitions were made to be antithetical. That was part of my point, poorly made -- that despite this, there's still elements of Illusionism in Story Now games. The DM has a wide lattitude to provide a story that can be moved to a point they want, for instance. Examples would be introduction of fiction or framing in response to failures. Yes, there's the idea that everything must be about the players, but it's fairly trivial to attach a preferred story element to a character's stated intents or beliefs or actions, especially if you do it beforehand. There's also the Illusionism of soft-pedalling failures until the characters succeed. But, the main thrust was that there's a very subtle from of Illusionism (as defined) throughout the entire concept because the DM uses their force, limited as it may be, to adapt whatever they introduce to be part of the story. The skulker, as an example, was introduced by the DM, and then moved in the fiction to be relevant to the players, almost no matter what they players would have wanted otherwise. No player said, "I want there to be a skulker", it was, as stated, introduced as framing -- a potential challenge. Then it morphed to be in front of the characters as they did define what they cared about, until the skulker, now advisor to the Baron, was what they cared about. This kind of thread can be followed in many story games (but not all, it's not guaranteed).

That was my point. And I also agree that Forge-speak is generally too loaded with smug to be of more than limited use. It's custom built to define things not wanted as bad, and things wanted as good, so if you engage using the terms and their assigned definitions you're automatically adopting the good/bad assignments. Makes it very hard to argue a point against while using the terminology. I've adopted it here because I find it self-contradictory (mildly, at least) and because it's preferred by those with whom I'd like to discuss the point.

 

[Lanefan]

I think that what you say here would be controversial among many D&D players.

Many, but not all...

At least as I have experienced conversations about these matters, many D&D players are not that concerned with, and even sometimes hostile to, actually esablishing at the table what is happening in the fiction when some mechanical event takes place.

Where personally, in the pursuit of realism I often do want to tie the fiction to the mechanics where such can relatively easily be done; while recognizing that some things, e.g. hit points*, flat-out can't be tied to reality and simply have to be accepted for what they are for the sake of playability.

* - even there, for both the sake of realism and to allow poison to work as it should, I still maintain that any hit point damage involves a small measure of physical harm - hit points to me are a mix of meat and luck, being mostly (but not entirely) luck when you're near full and mostly meat when you're getting close to 0.

And in fact I think big chunks of 3E/PF depend upon a lack of such concern - eg we have mechanical phenomena like +30 natural armour bonuses (which are double the armour bonuses granted by the most powerful of enchanted armours) and DC 60 locks, with no real attempt to establish what in the fiction these mechanical elements correspond to. Likewise eg Reflex saves that don't actually require moving (and so, by the rules, can be made while balancing on a spire surrounded by a pit of infinite depth), etc.

I think that 5e negates some of these issues (eg bonuses and DCs) via bounded accuracy, but not others (eg Reflex saves, action economy issues, etc).

1e, perhaps surprisingly, negates a lot of them too; at least through the low-mid levels. There's still some rather gaping holes - dex-based saves vs. area-effect stuff where the victim really has nowhere to hide being but one such, as you note - but it's way better than 3e-PF-4e which all kinda take realism and throw it out the window.

Lan-"I'm having a real time - just taking what's not mine"-efan

p.s. HUGE props to anyone who can tell me the rather obscure song that line is from!

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, I know that a lot of DM's now describe each swing of the sword, and it's an approach I can't stand. First because I still see your attack roll as the one attempt that gets through their defenses among many, rather than the 1 swing per die roll approach that it seems many players/DMs equate. But also because it gets really old after a while, and either repetitive, or ever more absurd in a player's or DM's approach to describe the same thing that's happened a thousand other times differently. Instead we establish the fictional aspect of a given mechanic (spell, whatever) once, and then describe it when it's important. Otherwise we already know what it looks like in the fiction and can imagine that on our own.

Since I don't like disassociated mechanics, I've changed the way superiority dice and maneuvers work in our game. But once we understand how the mechanic relates to the fictional world, we don't have to consistently repeat it. Another example would be a short rest following a battle. We establish early on what the party does following a battle once they feel there is no remaining imminent threat - looting the bodies, healing, collecting ammunition, how they deal with the bodies, cleaning weapons, adjusting armor, a swig of water or wine, a snack, or whatever. Once we know what occurs following a battle, then it occurs after every battle unless otherwise changed. There is no need to repeat it over and over.

This.

Very much this.

Which speaks to the example upthread from (was it [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ?) regarding the character who wouldn't let the campfire go out. Who the bleep wants to roleplay camping for the night (after maybe the first night or two) every single time? I would hazard a guess that parties in my current campaign have collectively spent between 1000 and 2000 nights camping while field adventuring - in forests, on trails, in dungeon complexes, etc. Would you want to have roleplayed all those?

Thought not.

The first few times, sure. After that I just ask for a list of who's on watch when, and assume standard operating procedure unless (infrequently) there's reason not to.

After-battle resting is an excellent example of the same sort of thing.

I bolded another bit in the quote above with which I also wholeheartedly agree.

Lan-"roll initiative: a pack of marauding wolves attacks the camp..."-efan