Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. The player in your game has come up with a character....a farmboy who may have an important destiny, and who does not know the details of his parentage.
You as the GM create an NPC villain that serves as a foil to the PCs. You also entertain the idea that perhaps this NPC is somehow involved with PC Luke's parentage. Maybe he killed Luke's father? Or....maybe he even IS Luke's father.
As the GM, you are certainly able to steer the game in ways to try and get this to happen.
<snip>
I think to disavow GM authorship and guidance in this story is going too far.
I'm not disavowing GM authorship - I've repeatedly provided examples of GM authorship from actual play (a renegade elf; a holy man who is the father of the PC's balrog-possessed brother; a mage's tower; a wedding between said mage and the Gynarch of Hardby; the tarrasque emerging from beneath the earth to rampage; maruts who have a contract with the Raven Queen; etc).
But there is a way you are presenting and discussing the matter that I am not following. I feel there is an assumption you're making that I'm missing; or there's something I'm saying that you're not taking as literally as I intend it. I think I may have worked out what it is, and I am going to quote
something by Paul Czege that (if I'm right) is directly on point:
[A]lthough roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.
"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. . . . I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.
When you talk of GM "steering" or "guidance" it seems to me that you are assuming some sort of GM subtlety or even subterfuge (hence the connection to "illusionism"): the GM innocuously drops in an elf here, or a foil NPC there, seemingly nothing more than a bit of scenery, and then - BAM! - the GM springs his/her big reveal.
But, as per the quote from Czege, that's not really how "story now" RPGing works. Suppose that, just as you describe, the player has written into his/her PC backstory that there is some mystery around family and parentage, and some sort of destiny associated with that. Well, then, the player
knows that the GM is going to be addressing that stuff in play - the stuff that the player has flagged as interesting. The player knows that the GM will be framing scenes that "go where the action is". So if there is a recurrring NPC - Darth Vader - who, as play unfolds, is revealed to be an intriguing combination of past (one of the last of the Jedi) and future (right hand man of the emperor), then the player is not going to be indifferent to that NPC. The GM has flagged that the NPC is something s/he finds interesting; and by the moment of the big reveal (should it come), the NPC will have already come to life in a series of prior situations which themselves - in virtue of framing and/or resolution - have established the significance of this NPC (eg the PC is training to be a Jedi; the NPC is revealed to be a fallen Jedi). The GM is not trying to keep this stuff hidden; the GM is doing his/her best to bring this stuff out, because that's what makes the game move.
(Think also of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example of the brother's hat: it's not like a CoC adventure, where if Perception checks aren't successful the clue is missed; rather, Manbearcat makes it clear in framing that the PC recognises his brother's hat, so as to provoke the moment of thematically significant choice.)
So when the challenging revelation takes place - "Luke, I am your father!" - it doesn't come from nowhere. Even if the player doesn't see it coming until it comes, it is not a rabbit from a hat at that point. (Which is also relevant to the discussion upthread with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] about foreshadowing.) It is grounded in the prior events and outcomes of play, which themselves are not the unilateral products of GM authorship.
It's also important to recognise the difference between retropsective and prospective perspectives on this stuff. When the big reveal comes then, in retrospect, it will be a natural dramatic outcome of what went before. But at all those prior moments, there was any number of other ways things could have gone. When Aragorn/Strider turns out to be a good guy, that's a big reveal that fits with the prior stuff in the book; but, had he turned out to be a threat instead and the salvation came in some other form - well, that would make the story something different from what it is, but could equally wel be a "natural fit" with what preceded it.
The GM is trying (and not overtly) to introduce elements that open up these possibilities for dramatic moments; but that in itself is not "steering" in any stronger sense. And the fact that the players get to make action declarations for their PCs (say, Insight checks against Aragorn), and the fact that these checks succeed or fail based on something other than the GM's whim, precludes any sort of stronger steering unless the GM is just obviously going to disregard the rules and procedures of the game (eg narrate failures over the top of successes; disregard failures; etc).
I want to reiterate the above points by going back to the actual play example of the renegade elf. When I introduce that NPC into the game, I have in mind that I might do some stuff with him. That's the point of brining in a notable NPC. After the episode at the waterhole on the edge of the Abor-Alz, I remember that when the PCs arrived at the ruined tower the well had been filled with rubble. I can't remember whether this was a failure narration or just framing, but (in the fiction) it was clear to the PCs that the elf had done this, and (at the table) this was me doing something more with my elf. When the player then looks for his mace, and it is missing, it's natural that the elf - who, as the prior narration established, had been spending at least some time at the tower moving rubble - should have it.
These are all moments of authorship. But they're not "steerings" in any sense that adds to them being moments of authorship. I didn't know the PC would look for the mace - in fact, when I introduced the elf I don't think the mace was even established as an element of the fiction, because I remember at some point changing the stat block I'd prepared for the elf to give him mace skill rather than spear (?) skill, so that he could use the mace he'd stolen. So there was no "steering" towards the outcome of the elf having stolen the mace from the ruined tower.
Subsequently, when a player wrote a Belief for a shaman-type character about dreams of a dark force rising, I introduced the dark naga and established the elf as its servant. This is a deliberate building on an already-established NPC. But again I don't see it as a steering - there's no outcome towards which this is headed in any moment of play except (from the GM's point of view) "Here's this thing I think is interesting in light of the stuff that you've said you think is interesting. What do you make of it?"
To force an outcome is going to require the GM to interfere with a player's action declaration for his/her PC, and/or to narrate consequences and subsequent framing in disregard of whether players succeed or fail. This is going to be visible to the players.
if a 5E game revolves around the Dusk War....the players must have no causal impact on whether the Dusk War is dawning? The outcome is up to the players and what they do with their characters and the decisions they make.
<snip>
you are assuming that the Secret Backstory game must have a set ending. Which seems more like a Secret Future....but either way, your claim is incorrect.
If the game is about a prophesied event, and whether or not the prophesied time has come,
and the GM has not established whether or not it is true, as a matter of the fiction, that the time has or has not come, then it's not a "secret backstory" game! It's like a game with no map, where events are located in space as part of the process of play.
Whether or not the game with no map or no timeline is a GM-driven or player-driven one would depend on the principles and methods according to which events are located in space/time as part of the process of play.
From the fact that a game is a 5e game nothing can be inferred in a definitive fashion about any of the above, although conjectures might be formed based on what sorts of things the rulebooks say about the role of the GM and of the players, and what sorts of approaches to play the rules support or might sometimes get in the way of.
how does Story Now/Narrativistic GMing adjudicate action declaration separate from mechanics? And how is that adjudication not possible in other systems
I'm a bit confused - are you asserting that "story now" RPGing depends upon a certain mechanical system, or not?
In any event, I have not asserted that. I've denied it. And I've talked about GMing in a "story now" fashion using a variety of systems (AD&D, RM, 4e, Cortex/MHRP, BW).
Eero Tuovinen gives a pithy account of the approach (under the label "the standard narrativistic model"):
1. 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 . . . by introducing complications.
2. The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants.
3. The actual procedure of play is very simple: 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 . . . 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. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.
4. The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. (Chargen is a key consideration in these games, compare them to see how different approaches work.) The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences).
From this account one can also see where particular systems may cause issues: a lot of traditional RPG PC generation (with D&D as one example) does not produce characters with clear dramatic needs (as I've noted, OA is something of an exception in this respect); and a lot of RPGing advice to GMs assumes that the GM will frame scenes (or "prepare the adventure) independently of whatever dramatid needs the players might signal via build and play of their PCs.
One can also see how action resolution mechanics can get in the way: if the mechanics prescribe very detailed consequences that aren't connected to the dramatic motivation or thematic significance of the action declaration, that can be a problem for the GM in terms of estblishing consequences (especially for failure) that drive the game rather than cause it to bog down in the sorts of non-thematically-significant stuff [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has mentioned not far upthread. I can report from experience that RM can suffer from this.
