D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Crimson Longinus]

Player establishes the character's dramatic need.

Right.

Player establishes the context for the stakes.

What does this mean?

Player chooses the response, which expresses some sort of judgement/valuation in relation to the fictional situation.

We tried to unpack this earlier, I don't think we quite got there. what makes some action 'a judgement'? Also, is every thing the characters do in a story now game 'a judgement?' Don't they ever just non judgementally put boots on or order a drink? What portion of the player actions need to be these judgements for qualify for Story Now?

The system and social context do not dictate a "right answer".

Sure. I just don't think why on Earth you think this is at all unique to Story Now. In my game today the characters allied with a harpy. Fine by me, she seemed like a nice lass, if you don't mind murderous cannibals. (I was being unfear, it's technically not cannibalism, she wouldn't eat other harpies.)

You mean this?
By "premise" do you mean "genre"? "Subject matter"?

Both, probably some other things too. When starting a game it is customary to agree upon what the game is at least roughly about, right? You seem to do so too, everyone does. It might be something very specific, or it might be pretty broad, but it practically always exists. And this premise informs and influences what sort of things the characters do in the game, thus it influences what sort of decisions the players make. Do you disagree with some part of this?

It's a game of Arthurian romantic fantasy. There are no spaceships or beam weapons or radios or railways. If the players feel like engaging with those things, we play other games.

Within the scope of the genre, the system does not tell the players whether to take the side of the nobles or the peasants. Whether to oppose bandits, or by sympathetic to them, or join with them. Whether to be Christian or pagan. Whether to kill or convert their enemies. Whether to be faithful to their spouses, or to follow their hearts. These are the sorts of situations that a game of Arthurian romantic fantasy generates. The players express their own judgements, via the play of their characters.

Right. This is the premise, and I'd assume it informs what sort of things the players declare their characters will actually do.

I am trying to nail down at which point in your book establishing a premise stops and establishing non-story-now-appropriate influences to the player decision making begins. Like if I say the theme of the game is 'sword and sorceryish pulp adventures" which it is? What if I said it is "Star Wars rebel heroes" game? That kinda implies morality. Is it just the limits to morality we are worried about here, or the style and flavour of things the characters are assumed to do?

A lot of 5e D&D play gets described on these boards. I don't see accounts of "story now" play. Maybe they are there and I've missed them.

No one is claimed 5e play is Story Now. Merely that that the things you define as indicators of story now can and are present in it. Hell, it is very common that things on both your story now and not-story-now lists are presents in the same game, happily mixed. Like some stakes are based on player defined character's dramatic needs, and some are GM established in reference to the setting. And of course in all sort of games the player's actions can have impact, and it is hella weird to think that they wouldn't. On your list of non-story-now only the first is one is at least somewhat recognisably present in my games. What this means, I don't, know, except that your binary definitions do not reflect the reality.

When I started a thread asking What is worldbuilding for?, I got a lot of replies from 5e players which demonstrated that they do not play "story now" 5e. I don't recall any replies from 5e "story now" players.

Yeah, I absolutely love worldbuilding. If this is antithetical to story now, then that's a black mark against story now in my book.

I don't know how you resolve these action declarations - looking for spell components, looking for wealthy people, gathering information, and burglarising someone.

Why does it matter? And certainly you know how the 5e rules work?

I don't know what is at stake in these action declarations, how they speak to any dramatic needs, and what sort of "point" is being made in declaring them.

On the basis of your description, and having to fill in those gaps, it seems to me that you are describing play that is predominantly what I (following Edwards) would call high concept simulationism, but probably with some gamist moments (when the players have to take a chance and in that moment of play - which sometimes might be a relatively extended moment - find out if they win or lose). My reason for making this conjecture is that your description focuses on the setting and situation but says nothing about the characters or the stakes in value-laden terms; and I'm treating your descriptions as an indicator of what you find salient, and then basing my conjecture on that.

Because it's a conjecture it of course might be wrong.

The point was about how character driven play occurs in non-story-now games. The players decide that they want to do something, they do, and then the story is suddenly about that.

 

[Campbell]

When I speak about character driven play, I am not talking about sandboxes. I am speaking to the sort of play that is fundamentally about the characters as individuals - aspirations, beliefs, who and what they choose to place their faith in and the important relationships in their lives (family, lovers, rivals, mentors, etc.). You can totally do this kind of stuff in High Concept play, but general sandbox play, or "shenanigans" are not really what I mean.

This sort of High Concept Character Driven play is basically what my group's Exalted, Vampire and L5R games revolve around.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When I speak about character driven play, I am not talking about sandboxes. I am speaking to the sort of play that is fundamentally about the characters as individuals - aspirations, beliefs, who and what they choose to place their faith in and the important relationships in their lives (family, lovers, rivals, mentors, etc.). You can totally do this kind of stuff in High Concept play, but general sandbox play, or "shenanigans" are not really what I mean.

This sort of High Concept Character Driven play is basically what my group's Exalted, Vampire and L5R games revolve around.

Yeah, I get the distinction you're making. And at least to me play that doesn't at least occasionally address the stuff you mention feels rather shallow. Though to me it doesn't need to be about that all the time, but I also fully get the desire to focus on it almost exclusively.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, I get the distinction you're making. And at least to me play that doesn't at least occasionally address the stuff you mention feels rather shallow. Though to me it doesn't need to be about that all the time, but I also fully get the desire to focus on it almost exclusively.

There's another difference here between the GM adds such things to the game for the players on one hand and these things being what the game is about on the other. On the gripping hand, there's another difference between the GM drafting/curating the experience and the GM not doing that.

 

[pemerton]

Wow, a little blast from the past there. That thread was a big part of my understanding of games beyond those I was playing, and toward trying new ones out.

This post - What is *worldbuilding* for? - seems fairly similar to what @Crimson Longinus is saying in this thread. Eg:

I think the GM should work with the players to try and incorporate whatever ideas they're trying to bring to the table. I see your point how a GM can use his authorship of the setting details to limit player choice, but I don't think it need be so.

<snip>

I do agree this is a case of the GM's authorship taking priority over the player's attempt to establish world details....but I don't think that is a problem in this case. As I mentioned above, I can see it being a problem in other areas, but details such as the location of an item being searched for seem to me to be safely in the hands of the GM.

As a GM I'm far more interested in a player contributing to the shared fiction through character actions and relationships and desires, and how all those things can impact worldbulding, rather than in a player trying to author a solution to a problem they are facing.

<snip>

The GM can guide things towards the outcomes he wants. Or less severely, he can nudge a bit here and there. Again, I don't think this needs to be the case. And at times, I don't think it's bad when it does happen.

<snip>

Sure, it is common. I've played in games like it quite a bit. Most of the games I've played in have had at least some element of it. My current game that I DM certainly does. The difference is that I don't think I as the GM wield my secret knowledge like a club to bash the players with. I establish elements of the games that I think will be compelling. I don't do it simply to thwart my players and any ideas that they may have.

<snip>

I'm all for character generation determining major elements of the game. I think the setting should help shape the characters, and then the characters should help shape the action.

I do have a good deal of secret history in my campaign. And yes, the PCs do come across bits of lore here and there that is slowly revealing he big picture. But I don't use this story to force them down specific paths. I generally don't use discovering the secret history the goal of their actions....they generally determine what they're doing and why, and then they learn some crazy things along the way. The players add just as much to the world as I do.

<snip>

Do my ideas sometimes trump the players? Perhaps a bit. But I would say their ideas trump mine more often. It's pretty give and take.

<snip>

I do get your contention with the playstyle in general, especially given how you have described it. I think perhaps we agree much more than it may seem. If I had to boil it down to one major difference, I suppose it would be that I don't think the GM having written anything down beforehand means he cannot be flexible, and that his game cannot be collaborative.

From this post, as in Crimson Longinus's, it's not clear who is establishing dramatic needs, context for stakes, etc. The overall tenor, to me, seems to be high concept simulationism: that impression is reinforced, for me, by "details such as the location of an item being searched for seem to me to be safely in the hands of the GM" and by the "good deal of secret history".

But you were there so you can tell us!

 

[pemerton]

No one is claimed 5e play is Story Now.

Well, I've claimed that some of it might be, just as I know that there has been AD&D "story now" play. But I've also said I don't think it can be typical, given I don't see it discussed.

In my game today the characters allied with a harpy. Fine by me, she seemed like a nice lass, if you don't mind murderous cannibals. (I was being unfear, it's technically not cannibalism, she wouldn't eat other harpies.)

Perhaps you're playing "story now"? I don't know, I am only trying to go on a few fairly abstract descriptions of your play.

Does it matter that the PCs are doing this? Or is it more like bribing the Ogre in B2 play to have it help us beat the Orcs - a move that is primarily an expedient one, with no meaning beyond that?

Player establishes the context for the stakes.

What does this mean?

Suppose that a question thrown up in play is, will the PCs ally with the djinni, or try and rebind them in their ancient prisons? (This happened in my 4e game.)

So what is at stake here is freedom vs prison, chaos vs order, elemental air vs other elements, etc. (I hope it's clear enough that these things are not all discrete, but intertwine both in the fiction and by way of metaphor, theme etc.)

Why has a scene been framed in which these are the stakes?

Other examples have been posted by me upthread. Thurgon and Aramina argue about whether she should repair his breastplate - what is at stake is his capacity to protect her, his control over the agenda of their journey, whether or not she is subordinate to him in some fashion, but also his dependence upon her. Why is a scene framed in which these are the stakes?

Thurgon meets his brother Rufus - and Rufus is cowed, serving "the master" and unwilling to aid Thurgon in his goal of liberating Auxol. Later on, after failing to change Rufus's mind, Thurgon meets his mother Xanthippe - and she is old, and tired, and berates him for having left her for so long and urges him not to leave her again. Why are scenes framed in which these things, in which Thurgon's ties to his family conflict with his aspirations for his own and his family's glory, are the stakes?

In "story now" play, the answer is - because that is what the player has established as salient, relevant, compelling, <insert suitable adjective here>. There are very many ways for a player to do this - via PC build, via action declaration, via informal signals at either of those points, via out-of-character requests or remarks, etc. But it is a hallmark of "story now" play that the player is the one who establishes the context for, the meaning of, the salience of, the relevance of, etc, whatever it is that is at stake in a situation.

This goes all the way back to my doubt that a curiosity about dragons triggered by seeing "here be dragons" in a GM's notes or map is a hallmark of "story now" play. Perhaps on the odd occasion it is - seeing the GM's note triggers or crystallises some idea of the players, about what would be thematically compelling. But far more typical, I think, is that the player in this sort of case is curiously exploring the GM's fiction, and inviting the GM to establish the context for the stakes of particular scenes.

I want go back to your Exalted story about the Deathlord. As I understand your account of it, you (and most of the table) didn't think that anything was as stake during the monologue - it was intended just as colour to support the framing of the conflict between PCs and Deathlord. But your player injected stakes into the situation, which - via their play of their PC - they had made salient; and they made a choice that - as you seemed to describe it - shocked the table.

Maybe the allying with the harpy was like that? From your account I simply can't tell.

what makes some action 'a judgement'? Also, is every thing the characters do in a story now game 'a judgement?' Don't they ever just non judgementally put boots on or order a drink? What portion of the player actions need to be these judgements for qualify for Story Now?

In "story now" typically there won't be the putting on of boots or the ordering of drinks. This is the point of the principle "cut to the action". Burning Wheel expressly follows Vincent Baker in DitV: "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Here is the quote of Baker (from DitV p 138, under the heading "Drive play toward conflict), found on p 72 of BW Gold edition:

If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.​

​

Sooner or later - sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis - they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like.​

Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.​

The "someone else" will typically be a NPC the GM has authored, and in these games the GM is doing that having regard to the basic principles for framing, which are to introduce elements, circumstances and stakes that speak to whatever it is that the players are making salient in the way I described just above.

What counts as a judgement? I'm relying on the intuitive idea that some fiction has, or makes, a "point" and some doesn't. Edwards drew the contrast when he referred to the pages of description of military hardware in a Clancy thriller. Edwards also refers to an "engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence". Human relationships. The nature and meaning of life and death. Law vs chaos. Loyalty vs betrayal. Valour vs cowardice. Justice vs mercy. Tradition vs change. The place of hope in the universe. These are just some of the core, recurring, themes of fantasy and hence the sorts of things one might expect in FRPGing. There are myriad ways of particularising them, elaborating on them, bringing them into play, responding to them.

Here are some examples that Edwards gives:

• Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
• Do love and marriage outweigh one's loyalty to a political cause?
• And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and stories of all sorts.

And here are some points of contrast, made with reference to vampire RPGing:

• Character . . . What does it feel like to be a vampire?
• Situation . . . What does the vampire lord require me to do?
• Setting . . . How has vampire intrigue shaped human history and today's politics?
• System . . . How do various weapons harm or fail to harm a vampire, in specific causal detail?

I hope that's clear enough.

I am trying to nail down at which point in your book establishing a premise stops and establishing non-story-now-appropriate influences to the player decision making begins. Like if I say the theme of the game is 'sword and sorceryish pulp adventures" which it is? What if I said it is "Star Wars rebel heroes" game? That kinda implies morality. Is it just the limits to morality we are worried about here, or the style and flavour of things the characters are assumed to do?

To me, your question is the same as asking at what point does a story prompt prevent an author from expressing their vision? I don't see how there can be any mechanical answer.

Sword and sorcery pulp doesn't seem problematic. Nor does "you are members of the rebellion". Whereas "you are heroes of the rebellion" seems to me to already answer the questions that game is most likely to pose.

On your list of non-story-now only the first is one is at least somewhat recognisably present in my games.

<snip>

Why does it matter? And certainly you know how the 5e rules work?

Given that the fundamental act of RPGing is authoring a shared fiction, and that who does this in accordance with what principles is what marks the basic differences between RPG experiences, knowing how declared actions are resolved is pretty fundamental to understanding what sort of game is being played.

The point was about how character driven play occurs in non-story-now games. The players decide that they want to do something, they do, and then the story is suddenly about that.

As it stands, that's not a description of "character driven play". Where and how do the characters figure? Players making choices within a fairly traditional sandbox seems to fall under the description of "the players decide they want to do something, and then the story is about that".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To build off some stuff @pemerton has said about Story Now, and hopefully in a way that can illustrate the difference from non-SN play, I offer my own game. It has Story Now pieces, but that is not the whole of the experience. I am improving on facilitating those pieces, but it is a process of learning. (This is, after all, my very first long-runner as DM.)

First, the start of this game was not really Story Now at all. I had, previously, had a group which did some stuff to make an Arabian Nights inspired setting: the Tarrakhuna, and specifically its largest city, Al-Rakkah. With that group, various facts were established about the world because of the playbooks those players used. E.g., we had a Grim World Slayer; I said I as DM was uncomfortable with having a player character who was literally addicted to murder, so I asked how he got his violence fix, and he said he was a monster hunter, like a cross between Van Helsing and the slightly crazy versions of Batman. This established that there are monsters in the wastes between the settled places of the region. Other facts, I established myself: there is little influence from dragons, friends, or fae in this world, instead genies fill that role from their country of Jinnistan in its parallel elemental world; the main religion is the Safiqi priesthood, with the Kahina (druids + shamans) being the majority of the remainder; etc.

Little to none of this is Story Now. It's just players and me agreeing on the backdrop as it were. My new group added further elements and expanded on the ones that already existed, e.g. the first group had had a Shaman, the current group had a Druid, so that altered that perspective. We have had no actual Safiqi characters (no Clerics or Paladins), but three characters have learned from them.

Sometimes, I'm crafting plot hooks or adventure locations for them. My little "masquerade ball turned murder mystery," for example. Other times, I follow their lead, like when the Bard went looking for a more pure "adventure" with less strings attached because he'd been doing a lot of emotional stuff in the game recently and needed a break (IC and OOC). I will use such opportunities to insert useful things, e.g. when the party arrived at the formerly-hidden entrance to the lost city, they discovered their Druid friend, because the player had returned from hiatus and had (via solo play) finished his temporary-indefinite "Enoch was no more, for God took him" excursion. But, for example, once they got into the city, they did some fairly Story Now things, e.g. the Bard (who has both IC and OOC interest in archaeology) carefully examined the initial market square they came upon in hopes of finding evidence of its purpose or cultural artifacts that might have been abandoned during the ancient exodus from the city. Unfortunately, he got snake eyes...so he asked his one question (as is my policy for such rolls). Knowing that this character values freedom and independence (his Alignment move is "reveal corruption or oppose oppression"), I gave an Unwelcome Truth answer that would challenge his enthusiasm for the ancient secrets of this place, pitting his own values against one another: info they had already learned from just looking around casually (me extemporizing) finally became clear...because this wasn't just any marketplace, it was a slave market. This city had been one of the greater hubs of genies trading in mortal-race slaves before the mass departure of genies moving to Jinnistan. This proved a relatively minor note overall in their explorations of the place, but it definitely induced the character to have a much more critical, less wide-eyed perspective on the ruins: the people who had called this place home were not good people. Other concerns proved more salient as they investigated places in the city they thought important: the palace, some libraries, some places where bound spirits were hanging out (indeed, the bound spirits proved a much more relevant thing than the fact that the genies here were slavers, much to my surprise), etc. And when they finally reached the basement of the temple they wanted to get into, they were rewarded with more info about ancient history, given by an imperfect but relatively unbiased source: the World-Serpent, one of the greatest of the great spirits. The party Druid decided his mission required that he enter a covenant with it, and he had to decide whether he was willing to meet the spirit's terms--in the end, after wrestling with it a bit, he was, and thus the pact was made, though the World-Serpent made clear that this pact would not be the same as the ones it had made with the ancient genies, because those gifts had been abused; instead, the Druid would be the beginning of something new, and would be burdened by responsibilities as a result. This challenged this character by putting his thirst for discovery and exploration in conflict with his newfound commitment to the mission given to him by the One, via friendly proxies he had already met.

Two adventures previously, the party (just Bard, Battlemaster, and Ranger at the time) was prompted (=I prompted them) to deal with a subversive cult in the city, very "Church of Happyology" stuff. Along the way, they dealt with both prompts purely arising from my own work, and also put their own interests on the line to make sure this cult was obliterated (they succeeded fantastically, saving pretty much or even absolutely everyone who could be saved). For example, the Ranger has established that he has an ambitious but positive relationship with his orcish paternal grandmother (matriarch of their formerly-nomad tribe and whose position he is very clearly one of the main candidates to fill when she abdicates or dies) and a very antagonistic relationship with his human maternal grandfather (a rich and powerful but often slimy merchant in the big city). However, the Ranger is also now a devotee of the Resolute Seeker, an aspect of the One that focuses on hunting down evil in the dark places where it hides (as opposed to the more stay-at-home guardian aspect, the Stalwart Soldier), and thus his faith compelled him to use whatever resources he could to prevent the cultists from hurting innocents....and he thus chose to call on his hated grandfather. I framed a scene designed to challenge the Ranger's commitment to his hatred: the grandfather had previously had his young (human) granddaughter, one of the Ranger's cousins, kidnapped by Very Bad People and begged the Ranger to save her (which he did do, despite kinda wishing to leave them to their fate). This deeply affected the grandfather: he had seen firsthand how the darkness of the city and the region could hurt people, even the powerful, and had realized how much the people in his life actually meant to him. He isn't quite a changed man yet, but this revelation has re-directed him. So grandfather was happy to commit his money and influence to keeping people away from the cult while the PCs dealt with it, and then he did something that REALLY messed with the Ranger. Not as payment, not as a prelude, just as a request, he asked if he could count on the Ranger's endorsement for his effort to be named the new Minister of Public Works—because the former had been feeble in his old age and had failed to build up the city, creating the kind of environment where little girls are kidnapped to extort people and the poor get used as tools to manipulate others. The Ranger was in shock; this was nothing at all like what he expected...and he agreed to give that endorsement! The player had to go on hiatus shortly after this, but the whole process ended up being a beautiful "what matters more to you? Feuding with your grandfather or getting a qualified and seemingly pro-social new Minister of Public Works?"

My efforts remain far from perfect. The players can be frustratingly passive at times, and every prompt I give moves things away from proper Story Now. But I'm doing better, and with time, the players are taking a bit more initiative themselves to define what they want and why. I don't think I really want an absolute 100% Story Now, all day every day, kind of game, nor do I think that my players would want one, but having more of it is a good thing, at least for the moment.

 

[clearstream]

This is from a poster in that thread:

I figured you two might find that particularly comical given our Stonetop game!

And @darkbard and @Nephis might find that particularly comical given our Dungeon World game.

And @AbdulAlhazred and @kenada and @niklinna might find that particularly comical given our Torchbearer game.

I guess the explored wildernesses, the towns, the deities and myth, the friends and family and enemies, the monsters and marauders, and the history we’re uncovering is just a big ole “nope!”

Damn. And I thought we were actually imagining a space and playing a TTRPG in it all along!

I must misunderstand your meaning. Frex Stonetop, I feel like Strandberg has done a ton of worldbuilding for us. To give you an idea of what I am thinking of

Without worldbuilding you have no wilderness to explore,

Frex Book II, the Flats

nor seas to sail across,

Frex Book II, the Stream

nor kingdoms to live in or to overthrow.

Perhaps the North Manmarch? Not exactly kingoms in Stonetop, but ambitious chiefs...

You have no history, no deities (which kinda screws over any Clerics in the game!),

Frex the Lightbearer, appointed servant of Helior the Day-bringer...

Then too, I think about Middarmark in TB2. These are two highly detailed, opinionated worlds put in place by game designers as worldbuilders. Middarmark seems optional in TB2. Stonetop is Stonetop and the Wider World, though... it's not clear to me that one would play Stonetop without availing of that worldbuild.

I'm just wondering what you are thinking of? Where the balance could lie between a vivid game-world that players inhabit, and pure shared authorship? I'm thinking about the draw maps / leave blanks suggestion in DW.

 

[Aldarc]

I must misunderstand your meaning. Frex Stonetop, I feel like Strandberg has done a ton of worldbuilding for us. To give you an idea of what I am thinking of

Then too, I think about Middarmark in TB2. These are two highly detailed, opinionated worlds put in place by game designers as worldbuilders. Middarmark seems optional in TB2. Stonetop is Stonetop and the Wider World, though... it's not clear to me that one would play Stonetop without availing of that worldbuild.

I'm just wondering what you are thinking of? Where the balance could lie between a vivid game-world that players inhabit, and pure shared authorship? I'm thinking about the draw maps / leave blanks suggestion in DW.

IMHO, when most people talk about "world-building," much like the particular poster that @Manbearcat quotes, they are advocating in favor of high myth, story before worldbuilding that is heavily pre-fabricated by the published setting or the GM. The GM/writer has authored everything about the setting. The perspective tends to come across more as high myth or nothing.

The world-building in Stonetop, in contrast, is fairly light. It was very much designed with drawing maps, sketching out the area, but leaving blanks. Deities exist in Stonetop, but are these the only deities of the setting? Strandberg doesn't say; he says that these are the deities enshrined at Stonetop. Some of the playbooks lean into these deities, but this represents piety embodied in the character playbooks rather than the sort of pre-authored world-building featuring theological treatises, back stories of holy days, mythologies, and the like. Helior and their place in the world is left for the player of the Lightbringer to define. The Lighbringer player does not ask the GM about Helior in Stonetop; the GM asks the Lightbringer player about Helior in Stonetop.

The quoted poster would likely have a pre-authored answer for the question "Where did the forest folk go?" Strandberg, however, refuses to answer and, instead, insists that this can only be answered in play. Strandberg, for example, writes in Stonetop:

There are no “official” answers to many of the questions raised by the Setting Guide. There are many blanks to filled in. You (the GM) have a setting guide, but it’s mostly filled with ideas rather than truths.

Stonetop comes with a lot of established setting, but it leaves a lot of blanks for you and your players to fill in during play. The setting is intended to serve as a springboard for your creativity. It helps set a tone and gives you all a common starting point. It provides details to riff on. It hints at answers but doesn’t always give them. Use the established setting to portray a rich and mysterious world.

Use the setting guide to inspire, but don’t feel beholden to it. If your players give you something that contradicts the established setting, don’t negate their input just because the book says so. The book isn’t the authority, it’s a resource for you to exploit.

I'm fairly certain that this approach to "world-building" would give the poster whom @Manbearcat quoted an aneurysm.

 

[clearstream]

This is from a poster in that thread:



I figured you two might find that particularly comical given our Stonetop game!

And @darkbard and @Nephis might find that particularly comical given our Dungeon World game.

And @AbdulAlhazred and @kenada and @niklinna might find that particularly comical given our Torchbearer game.

I guess the explored wildernesses, the towns, the deities and myth, the friends and family and enemies, the monsters and marauders, and the history we’re uncovering is just a big ole “nope!”

Damn. And I thought we were actually imagining a space and playing a TTRPG in it all along!

Apologies, my line of thought was interrupted by external events. My motive for asking/testing all the above is that I feel that space needs to exist for something like this

Four dissidents are staying overnight in a small apartment: two rooms - bedroom/kitchen/lounge and bathroom. In the morning, their contact is going to lead them to safety... or betrayal. The world build here is going to be very specific: the contents of the rooms are preestablished, right down to what is in the cupboards. The political situation in the wider world is pre-specified. Let's suppose that game systems exist for moves likely to be relevant, interesting, driving, and metagame systems for commitments.

Is Story Now still possible, even with a claustrophobically pre-specified world? If I decide that genuine powerful player-authored drama cannot play out in that context, then what must I say about many plays (i.e. theatre)? Say, The Burial at Thebes, which can be performed on a narrow set, and yet Antigone's choices could very well be those authored by a player in her sandals, even if that player does not decide anything beyond themselves about the game-world. Is the set at issue for the conflict inherent in their or Creon's choices?