D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Old Fezziwig]

A question here is - if the evil overlord is somehow tied to a character's belief, would it be acceptable to use the potential connection between the overlord outlined here as a justification for framing a scene with the beggars? In that case the same could be said for the passing mention of abandoned farms. Indeed failing to mention the abandoned farms upon traveling to the town might be an issue if the players actually latch on to the beggar - evil overlord connection. In this case the presence or not of abandoned farms might suddenly be important, and it might become somewhat strange that that this wasn't mentioned when first passing by.

Yes, I think so. If it's not what the scene's about, then framing that part too aggressively could undermine the actual action in the scene. That is, if the situation is that Prince John's squeezing the good people of Nottingham through overtaxation while Richard's away at the Crusades and that's also tied to a characters' belief, then I think it's okay to make this part of the framing — it's established as part of the fiction during world and character building. If the scene isn't about the poor of Nottingham, however, then making a big to-do about them could derail play — for instance, if a Robin Hood's player decides to do something based on his belief that he needs to get a new bow so he can take on PJ and the Sheriff, then hitting Friar Tuck's belief about the poor of Nottingham hard at that moment is not great form.

Regarding not mentioning them right away, I'm less concerned with that. If players aren't concerned with the farms explicitly, then I don't see the need for me to be concerned with them right away, but I do go back to my earlier post that says if the travel scene isn't related to the characters' beliefs then it probably shouldn't be played. And there would be no abandoned farms to pass by at that point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is an OSR game called Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures. It puts filling-in-the-blanks into character and setting creation. So as the players roll to create their characters, they are asked to add details about each other, add locations to the map, add and name NPCs, etc. It's pretty neat. So that's at least before rather than during the game.


Yes? And? So why do you choose to be rude about it? It's not like pemerton is the only one wants to draw this distinction.

I'm sure @Faolyn included you and others who hold that claim in her comments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In BW, if the scene of them traveling to town doesn't touch upon one of the characters' beliefs, then it shouldn't be part of play. If the travel scene does target their beliefs, then I don't have a problem with this being part of the GM's framing, but the scene can't linger there -- unless it's the part that is targeting the characters' beliefs. That said, typically, I wouldn't bring up abandoned farms unless it was part of the situation we'd agreed upon prior to play. I might describe farms, but not much else.

Edit: misspelling, fixed a "players'" that should have been "characters'."

I still don't see how your job as GM isn't just to do whatever the players want if you're not even allow to include a scene unless it directly pertains to the PCs beliefs.

 

[Lanefan]

In BW, if the scene of them traveling to town doesn't touch upon one of the characters' beliefs, then it shouldn't be part of play.

The characters don't exist in a vacuum in the setting; thus if they're for whatever reason undertaking a journey it's not like they're not going to look around at what they pass along the way.

This points to my big issue with scene-to-scene jumping - way too much potential gets missed in between, and way too much opportunity for interaction with the setting, perhaps even in ways not directly related to any existing beliefs etc. Also missed is any opportunity for the players/PCs to at some point decide to sidetrack themselves into something else (which I certainly hope is allowed; they're not on rails, are they?) e.g. they stop and do a good deed for some villagers along the way and come to realize there's a bigger issue there, so they stay and sort that before continuing to town.

Here, seeing the abandoned farms might eventually end up causing a player to change a character's beliefs (it's allowed, isn't it?). That opportunity never arises if the PCs are jumped straight into town without any narration of their journey and what they see during it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What would be a good way forward with this thread? Would the interests of this thread be better served by a spin-off thread that focused on one particular aspect of discussion?

I think it's fair to say that discussion of the nature of narrative/storygames is not best done in the D&D forum.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The characters don't exist in a vacuum in the setting; thus if they're for whatever reason undertaking a journey it's not like they're not going to look around at what they pass along the way.

This points to my big issue with scene-to-scene jumping - way too much potential gets missed in between, and way too much opportunity for interaction with the setting, perhaps even in ways not directly related to any existing beliefs etc. Also missed is any opportunity for the players/PCs to at some point decide to sidetrack themselves into something else (which I certainly hope is allowed; they're not on rails, are they?) e.g. they stop and do a good deed for some villagers along the way and come to realize there's a bigger issue there, so they stay and sort that before continuing to town.

Here, seeing the abandoned farms might eventually end up causing a player to change a character's beliefs (it's allowed, isn't it?). That opportunity never arises if the PCs are jumped straight into town without any narration of their journey and what they see during it.

I kinda feel that in these kinds of games, the characters  do exist in a vacuum.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm sure @Faolyn included you and others who hold that claim in her comments.

A mod just made a comment warning people to not make it personal in reference to these comments, and you want to widen the net?

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's fair to say that discussion of the nature of narrative/storygames is not best done in the D&D forum.

Though here at least the thread gets more eyes on it. In General, where these discussions usually rear their heads, it is - or certainly seems like - a smaller crew of regulars than in the D&D forum.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I still don't see how your job as GM isn't just to do whatever the players want if you're not even allow to include a scene unless it directly pertains to the PCs beliefs.

It's not to do what they want, but to give them opportunities to explore the things that they want, based on the characters and world they burnt prior to play. It's a question of honoring the priorities that the players have indicated. The GM is part of world-burning, and that is an opportunity to say "this is what I want to explore as GM," but once the situation is agreed upon and the characters are burned, the GM's role is to frame scenes to make the players make hard choices about what they've said their characters believe. If you're not hitting those beliefs as GM, then the reward cycle that makes advancement possible won't work, and the game will feel static. I think I said it earlier, but BW is really unforgiving/fragile when you don't play it as written. This isn't how I'd run D&D or a lot of other games, at all, but BW demands specific handling.

 

[Enrahim2]

I think it's fair to say that discussion of the nature of narrative/storygames is not best done in the D&D forum.

It make sense to be here as one of the main parts of the conversation is players not used to other games than D&D I think this thread would have been quite dead if there had only been people having experience in narrative games participating.