Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[pemerton]

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?

Well, I'm hoping to play this character today.

But I think you might be slightly missing the point of the Instinct. It's not about roleplaying camping. It's about, in circumstances where my PC is camping, it being within my power as a player to insist that the campfire is alight (because my PC has an Instinct to keep it burning). This is relevant for various things, including light and defence in dramatic moments.

 

[pemerton]

according to Ron Edward's article on Narrativism, what he terms "force" techniques (of which he classifies illusionism as one) are incompatible with narrative play:

"Producing a story via Force Techniques means that play must shift fully to Simulationist play. "Story" becomes Explored Situation, the character "works" insofar as he or she fits in, and the player's enjoyment arises from contributing to that fitting-in. However, for the Narrativist player, the issue is not the Curtain at all, but the Force. Force-based Techniques are pure poison for Narrativist play and vice versa. The GM (or a person currently in that role) can provide substantial input, notably adversity and Weaving, but not specific protagonist decisions and actions; that is the very essence of deprotagonizing Narrativist play."

The style of "simulationism" that Edwards describes here is (roughly) what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] were, upthread, describing as "storyteller" GMing.

A lof of Adventure Path RPGing falls under this description: the player's job is to create a PC who "fits in", and the player gains pleasure from playing that PC and discovering (which Edwards calls "exploring") the largely pre-authored story.

CoC is also a posterchild for this sort of RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

Does narrativism require (extensive) shared-authoring of backstory and setting during the game?

It's more complicated than that.

For instance, whether or not there is a vessel in the room and whether or not the villain is my PC's father are both matters of backstory and setting. But they have very different relationships to the dramatic trajectory of play: the first is about the availability of means (something to catch blood) to an end (brining the blood to my master), and the player is not the one who put that end into play (the decapitation was the result of failure by the PCs to outrace the assassin); the second is itself about the dramatic stakes of the situation.

Different systems use different approaches for establishing the availability and significance of means. Eg MHRP says that players can just narrate their existence, but its resolution system is very abstract, and so (eg) the Thing punching you and the Thing hitting you over the head with a steel girder (a means narrated into existence by the player) won't matter to resolution unless other mechanical steps are take (eg to turn the girder into an asset).

Whereas BW is more strict about players narrating means into existence, and is much more gritty in its expectations about the relationship between fiction and resolution: for instance, if a player wants an iron bar for his/her PC to hit things with this can't just be narrated into being; a check will be required. But hitting with a fist vs hitting with an iron bar is mechanically significant in itself.

Narrativist play is generally going to be averse to the idea that the whole situation, and every ficitonal element within it (girders, iron bars, vessels, NPC motivations) has been established in total, in advance by the GM without regard to the dramatic purpose the situation is serving at some particular moment of play.

Ron's assertion is that Narrativism and Simulationalism can't be part of the same game.

<snip>

in order for actions, events, etc. to relate to the character's motives, then the DM has to introduce story elements. I do, and I think they should, but there are some simulationist sandbox purists that feel that any DM input in regards to setting and story once the game has begun to be off-limits and infringing on player/character agency. If it's not in place on the map before the session, or determined randomly, it's not acceptable.

And so there you have one reason why Edwards might be right!

why would a simulationist approach be incompatible with a narrativist approach? Because it seems to be that's what my game tends to be, a combination of the two.

The only place I can see that is drastically different is that I don't regularly challenge the character's motivations or premise during conflict resolution. But is it really necessary for every die roll, every scene or every conflict to relate directly to the motivations and premise of the characters?

That's what "story now" play is aimed at: story NOW!

 

[Ilbranteloth]

He says that the GM is in charge of framing scenes and managing backstory.

He doesn't say anything about secret backstory. And for good reason. In the traditional fashion in which secret backstory is used, it is inimical to the "standard narrativistic model" that Eero Tuovinen is describing.;

The player doesn't know that the villain is their father. That is part of their backstory. Since it is not known to the player until it is revealed, it is a secret part of his backstory.

I know you'll have something to say about when the GM determines that - is it preplanned or is it made up on the spot. Just like what I was saying about a "meaningful" choice being a red herring in my post about...illusionary choices (have no idea what to call it at this point!), I think that whether the DM knows about it at the beginning of the campaign, a couple of sessions before it's revealed, or even a few moments before he reveals it is irrelevant in whether it's classified as "secret" backstory.

I would also be surprised if there aren't points in Story Now games where something like that might occur to the GM during a session, and they realize that it's not the right time to reveal it, so it waits for a later time, even several sessions later.

But really, the point is that Eero specifically points out backstory elements that the player themselves does not know and are not authored by them. That to me = secret backstory.

 

[Manbearcat]

The player doesn't know that the villain is their father. That is part of their backstory. Since it is not known to the player until it is revealed, it is a secret part of his backstory.

I know you'll have something to say about when the GM determines that - is it preplanned or is it made up on the spot. Just like what I was saying about a "meaningful" choice being a red herring in my post about...illusionary choices (have no idea what to call it at this point!), I think that whether the DM knows about it at the beginning of the campaign, a couple of sessions before it's revealed, or even a few moments before he reveals it is irrelevant in whether it's classified as "secret" backstory.

I would also be surprised if there aren't points in Story Now games where something like that might occur to the GM during a session, and they realize that it's not the right time to reveal it, so it waits for a later time, even several sessions later.

But really, the point is that Eero specifically points out backstory elements that the player themselves does not know and are not authored by them. That to me = secret backstory.

There are several posts that I could use to initiate this conversation, but this is as good as any (as there are several relevant bits).

I've recounted a few times one of my favorite moments GMing Dogs in the Vineyard (the best game from The Forge and in competition for my favorite game period).

One of my players chose a Relationship at 1d4 with his brother which was (something like) "my brother raised me when our parent's died...he's my hero." 1d4 is the worst die possible. It doesn't signify the closeness of the relationship, however. It just means that when the PC's brother is involved in one of our conflicts, it will serve to complicate matters rather than help.

This is a signal from the player (a). So I have this to work with up front.

So the PCs have struck out to a town on the periphery of the territory that attracts drifters, desperadoes, and general rabble-rousers. It is having all kinds of troubles because of it. There is a reason for this traffic; a powerful rancher outside of the territory is subsidizing a brothel. Now prostitution is very much against the faith.

When the Dogs arrive in the foyer of the building, the PC mentioned above sees a familiar hat on the coffee table; his brother's. The other Dogs know the hat too and they're all taken aback. The relevant PC says with absolute certitude something like "if the man who took this left him a shallow grave...there is going to be hell to pay."

From this I learn:

b) the PC is willing to risk a hell of a lot for his brother (fights with multiple gunmen are lethal) including potentially his oath as a Dog (cold-blooded killing may be in the cards here...let us find out).

c) the player has expressed interest that the hat signifies something bad potentially befalling his brother (and a revenge scenario perhaps arising from it) rather than his brother's heroic status being on the line (eg what if his brother is sinning in the brothel?).

So, given (a) and then (b) and (c) above, what is an appropriate Story NOW approach:

1) I shouldn't have made the hat his brother's. I mean...what are the odds? That isn't very realistic. A better choice would have been to have just made it a dusty hat smelling of sweat, booze (sin), and gunpowder (possibly sin). That is still very relevant to the general premise of the game (vulnerable, gun-toting Paladins risking everything to mete out justice and protect The Faith in a Wild West that never was) if not the specific thematic material signaled in (a).

2) Yes, go with the brother's hat, but even if the fiction hasn't established the nature of the hat's place there, if I thought it would be interesting to find out what happens if the brother does indeed reveal a serious moral downfall and sin against The Faith here, I should keep it that way and ignore (c).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There are several posts that I could use to initiate this conversation, but this is as good as any (as there are several relevant bits).

I've recounted a few times one of my favorite moments GMing Dogs in the Vineyard (the best game from The Forge and in competition for my favorite game period).

One of my players chose a Relationship at 1d4 with his brother which was (something like) "my brother raised me when our parent's died...he's my hero." 1d4 is the worst die possible. It doesn't signify the closeness of the relationship, however. It just means that when the PC's brother is involved in one of our conflicts, it will serve to complicate matters rather than help.

This is a signal from the player (a). So I have this to work with up front.

So the PCs have struck out to a town on the periphery of the territory that attracts drifters, desperadoes, and general rabble-rousers. It is having all kinds of troubles because of it. There is a reason for this traffic; a powerful rancher outside of the territory is subsidizing a brothel. Now prostitution is very much against the faith.

When the Dogs arrive in the foyer of the building, the PC mentioned above sees a familiar hat on the coffee table; his brother's. The other Dogs know the hat too and they're all taken aback. The relevant PC says with absolute certitude something like "if the man who took this left him a shallow grave...there is going to be hell to pay."

From this I learn:

b) the PC is willing to risk a hell of a lot for his brother (fights with multiple gunmen are lethal) including potentially his oath as a Dog (cold-blooded killing may be in the cards here...let us find out).

c) the player has expressed interest that the hat signifies something bad potentially befalling his brother (and a revenge scenario perhaps arising from it) rather than his brother's heroic status being on the line (eg what if his brother is sinning in the brothel?).

So, given (a) and then (b) and (c) above, what is an appropriate Story NOW approach:

1) I shouldn't have made the hat his brother's. I mean...what are the odds? That isn't very realistic. A better choice would have been to have just made it a dusty hat smelling of sweat, booze (sin), and gunpowder (possibly sin). That is still very relevant to the general premise of the game (vulnerable, gun-toting Paladins risking everything to mete out justice and protect The Faith in a Wild West that never was) if not the specific thematic material signaled in (a).

2) Yes, go with the brother's hat, but even if the fiction hasn't established the nature of the hat's place there, if I thought it would be interesting to find out what happens if the brother does indeed reveal a serious moral downfall and sin against The Faith here, I should keep it that way and ignore (c).

In regards to #1 - the odds might be low. But don't Story Now games sort of have a higher incidence of coincidences like this, since you're attempting to tie everything back to the characters and their motivations?

I can think of a lot of possibilities for the hat being there. But again, isn't that also discouraged in Story Now games? That is, thinking of possibilities ahead of time?

Based on what you've described with the Relationship role, the brother has to come into play at some point, right? I think the hat is a very cool way to go about it.

So my question is this - the hat was there. Now what? Can you start to define the brother's place in the story even though he's still offscreen? Or do you have to wait until the right circumstance?

There are all sorts of reasons you can come up with as to why the hat was there, but not his brother. If the brother doesn't show up now, you've just planted a seed that the brother is present in some manner. It could be any number of sessions before the brother actually shows up, right?

If it were me, I would not have the brother show up yet. Right now it's just the hat.

I'm also curious as to when you decided the brother's hat was on the table.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I'm hoping to play this character today.

But I think you might be slightly missing the point of the Instinct. It's not about roleplaying camping. It's about, in circumstances where my PC is camping, it being within my power as a player to insist that the campfire is alight (because my PC has an Instinct to keep it burning). This is relevant for various things, including light and defence in dramatic moments.

So in effect the presence of your character simply adds a minor but perhaps-significant-now-and-then twist to the party's standard overnight operating procedure, and things go on from there. That sounds cool.

Lan-"keep your night light burning"-efan

p.s. that line is from another somewhat obscure song; again big props to anyone who knows it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There are several posts that I could use to initiate this conversation, but this is as good as any (as there are several relevant bits).

I've recounted a few times one of my favorite moments GMing Dogs in the Vineyard (the best game from The Forge and in competition for my favorite game period).

One of my players chose a Relationship at 1d4 with his brother which was (something like) "my brother raised me when our parent's died...he's my hero." 1d4 is the worst die possible. It doesn't signify the closeness of the relationship, however. It just means that when the PC's brother is involved in one of our conflicts, it will serve to complicate matters rather than help.

This is a signal from the player (a). So I have this to work with up front.

So the PCs have struck out to a town on the periphery of the territory that attracts drifters, desperadoes, and general rabble-rousers. It is having all kinds of troubles because of it. There is a reason for this traffic; a powerful rancher outside of the territory is subsidizing a brothel. Now prostitution is very much against the faith.

When the Dogs arrive in the foyer of the building, the PC mentioned above sees a familiar hat on the coffee table; his brother's. The other Dogs know the hat too and they're all taken aback. The relevant PC says with absolute certitude something like "if the man who took this left him a shallow grave...there is going to be hell to pay."

From this I learn:

b) the PC is willing to risk a hell of a lot for his brother (fights with multiple gunmen are lethal) including potentially his oath as a Dog (cold-blooded killing may be in the cards here...let us find out).

c) the player has expressed interest that the hat signifies something bad potentially befalling his brother (and a revenge scenario perhaps arising from it) rather than his brother's heroic status being on the line (eg what if his brother is sinning in the brothel?).

So, given (a) and then (b) and (c) above, what is an appropriate Story NOW approach:

1) I shouldn't have made the hat his brother's. I mean...what are the odds? That isn't very realistic. A better choice would have been to have just made it a dusty hat smelling of sweat, booze (sin), and gunpowder (possibly sin). That is still very relevant to the general premise of the game (vulnerable, gun-toting Paladins risking everything to mete out justice and protect The Faith in a Wild West that never was) if not the specific thematic material signaled in (a).

2) Yes, go with the brother's hat, but even if the fiction hasn't established the nature of the hat's place there, if I thought it would be interesting to find out what happens if the brother does indeed reveal a serious moral downfall and sin against The Faith here, I should keep it that way and ignore (c).

You question is confusing. 1) is a past tense, a potential rewrite of the established framing, while 2) is a path forward. And you don't have an option where you honor all of a, b, and c. Essentially, you've given two options, neither of which I'd pick.

Also, something I'm not sure I'm grasping, but the dice pool mechanic in Dogs is that the complications come from having to use more than 3 dice to 'raise' a conflict, meaning the d4 will be more likely to cause a complication. Was there a challenge here, and the hat is framed in because 3 or more dice were used, or did you frame in the hat so that the brother could plausibly be used in a complication? Why did you choose to frame the brother's hat there to begin with?

 

[Manbearcat]

You question is confusing. 1) is a past tense, a potential rewrite of the established framing, while 2) is a path forward. And you don't have an option where you honor all of a, b, and c. Essentially, you've given two options, neither of which I'd pick.

Maybe its confusing because my language/format didn't coherently illuminate what I was trying to get at? Maybe this will do better:

I wasn't asserting anything on my own behalf. I was trying to solicit [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] 's perceptions of correct GMing for a Story NOW agenda (as Dogs is) in such a situation. I was asking if he thought 1 or 2 was more appropriate.

I've seen a lot of sympathy for "realism" and a lot of aversion to "go to the (thematically signaled or system-premised) action" in this thread, so I framed things to take into account those components so as to gain insight into the mental processing he thinks a GM should undergo.

Also, something I'm not sure I'm grasping, but the dice pool mechanic in Dogs is that the complications come from having to use more than 3 dice to 'raise' a conflict, meaning the d4 will be more likely to cause a complication. Was there a challenge here, and the hat is framed in because 3 or more dice were used, or did you frame in the hat so that the brother could plausibly be used in a complication? Why did you choose to frame the brother's hat there to begin with?

I think you mean:

"complications come from having to use more than 2 dice to 'See' in a conflict, triggering Fallout equal to the number of dice used to See (and scaled according to the type of combat), meaning the d4 will be more likely to complicate the Dog's life rather than aid it."

Is that correct?

There is also the component that Blood Relations come free at 1d6 in Dogs, so the player in question specifically chose to allocate their 1d4 Relation PC build die when they could have allocated a 1d6 if the brother came into play later. Therefore, the player specifically signaled (a) they want their relationship to their brother to carry thematic weight in play (such that "go to the action" or Dog's "at every moment, drive play toward conflict" means that his brother needs to be a provocative centerpiece of play) and (b) they want it to complicate their character's life rather than aid it (there is also Reward Cycle stuff here because Fallout isn't just injury, but also xp and growth).

Finally, I framed the hat there, rather than just his brother getting down with a prost, because (1) I'm typically (but not always) of the opinion that the slow simmer/implication of dramatic weight is more impactful than expository dialogue or being straight slapped in the face and (2) I wanted to leave it open-ended as to what was happening. (2) Allows for me to solicit player input through reaction and avoid metaplot by keeping backstory loose and firming it up only when its continuity/on-screen relevant (therefore getting some "play to find out action" for myself).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe its confusing because my language/format didn't coherently illuminate what I was trying to get at? Maybe this will do better:

I wasn't asserting anything on my own behalf. I was trying to solicit [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] 's perceptions of correct GMing for a Story NOW agenda (as Dogs is) in such a situation. I was asking if he thought 1 or 2 was more appropriate.

I've seen a lot of sympathy for "realism" and a lot of aversion to "go to the (thematically signaled or system-premised) action" in this thread, so I framed things to take into account those components so as to gain insight into the mental processing he thinks a GM should undergo.

Still doesn't make sense as written. Let me substitute a simpler frame for illustration:

I did a thing. Which do you think:

1) should I have done a different thing? or;
2) what should the thing really be?

See? 1) is asking if you were correct to end up with your vignette at all. 2) is asking if, since you've already established the hat, what should it be? These choices aren't coherent with each other, and seem to get at entirely different questions. I could, for instance, answer both 1 and 2 -- you shouldn't have done it, but now that you have it should be the brothers. Or neither -- you should have done it, but it shouldn't be the brother's hat. They're not actually different choices, as presented.

I think you mean:

"complications come from having to use more than 2 dice to 'See' in a conflict, triggering Fallout equal to the number of dice used to See (and scaled according to the type of combat), meaning the d4 will be more likely to complicate the Dog's life rather than aid it."

Is that correct?

Well, I meant 3 or more, but that's it, too, so yes, thanks.

There is also the component that Blood Relations come free at 1d6 in Dogs, so the player in question specifically chose to allocate their 1d4 Relation PC build die when they could have allocated a 1d6 if the brother came into play later. Therefore, the player specifically signaled (a) they want their relationship to their brother to carry thematic weight in play (such that "go to the action" or Dog's "at every moment, drive play toward conflict" means that his brother needs to be a provocative centerpiece of play) and (b) they want it to complicate their character's life rather than aid it (there is also Reward Cycle stuff here because Fallout isn't just injury, but also xp and growth).

Finally, I framed the hat there, rather than just his brother getting down with a prost, because (1) I'm typically (but not always) of the opinion that the slow simmer/implication of dramatic weight is more impactful than expository dialogue or being straight slapped in the face and (2) I wanted to leave it open-ended as to what was happening. (2) Allows for me to solicit player input through reaction and avoid metaplot by keeping backstory loose and firming it up only when its continuity/on-screen relevant (therefore getting some "play to find out action" for myself).

Ah, cool, wasn't clear on how you were using this, as I've read DitV, but never had the opportunity to play.