RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[clearstream]

Question -
How does the GM actively reveal the fact that the will is in the safe before the players open the safe?

If an NPC tells them, fictionally how do they know it’s currently still there? How do they know the NPC isn’t lying? Etc. in short - how is this a true reveal of binding myth?

I think what actually happens in play is that binding myth is very rarely something that can be preemptively revealed to the PCs. The PCs must go to the location to sense firsthand the thing that was described, because until then it’s not binding. *One can get around this with meta reveals of such binding myths but that’s not how most RPGs are played.

Here you're illustrating dissimilar premises of play.

As you imply, GM can actively reveal the dirt's location and commit to its veracity. Nothing prevents it other than the premises of the mode of play.

Most treat anything revealed indirectly to the PCs as non-binding until the characters can directly ‘see it for themselves’.

@pemerton has reiterated the premises of narrativist play over several posts. One can decide that - contrary to their testimony and linked examples - no one really plays according to those premises. Even then, one has to ignore extant game text instructing to do exactly what they testify to.

Isn't the simpler explanation that - while there is a considerable body of satisfying play built on different premises -  this play really is built on  these premises. If it's non-binding, it's revealed as such; otherwise players may invest reliance in it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Precisely. It is made clear the sort of work required to paint oneself into a corner!

Reflection on the play to get to this point aligns my intuitions with yours. With unusually stringent commitments in place up front, we don't submit it to resolution. No up front commitment was made to keeping the Will's location hidden, so GM can actively disclose it, heading the problem off at the pass.

I could add - "and the Will's location cannot be disclosed." But that makes the chosen stakes quite surprising, so it must be "only false locations for the Will can be disclosed". No commitment has yet been made to conceal those falsehoods as such, so GM can actively disclose them as misdirection. I could prep the necessary concealment... but haven't we already gone past the point of plausibility?!

Lets back up a bit here: What is your goal? Mine is to present a series of situations which address the premise inherent in the play of the particular game in question. It's not a test of cleverness or an exercise in exploration, though skill and imagination may be significant factors in play at some level (see, for example BitD where these are definitely significant). So, to me, it's unusual for wandering about testing different hypotheses about where the GM hid the will to be a productive form of play. I mean, MAYBE in a very specific form of game focused on puzzle-solving and written very carefully in those terms MIGHT find that useful, but very rarely!

So, the GM wants to focus on the premise, which may be explication of the PCs character, beliefs, etc. It could be more specific too, or limited to the context of a very specific milieu, etc. These parts are not so central to play though, what I want to do is give the players the information they need in order to allow the fiction to evolve dramatically in the direction addressing that premise and agenda. So, if there's a focus on finding a document in a safe, then that goal is in service of the above objectives. Having the PCs go through some elaborate scenario only to find nothing and end up right back where they started is USUALLY NOT going to be productive! So, we don't generally do that. The documents might NOT be in the safe, but if the players achieve success in respect to the mechanics, then the game will express fiction which includes accomplishing at least part of their goals, not ALL of them, as noted in some of @pemerton 's posts where he noted the DitV directive to 'scale down'.

We thus begin to see the overall shape of play that is being advocated by VB/RE/JH/etc. 'Myth' serves as context, and generates constraints and obstacles which challenge the PCs and carry play in the direction of addressing the premise of play. Certain 'rules' govern how and what the GM can present, the players are given some sort of mechanism by which they can specify how they address the premise, and usually at some level mechanics address intent (though not always in terms of the atomic task resolution mechanic directly).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, the GM wants to focus on the premise, which may be explication of the PCs character, beliefs, etc. It could be more specific too, or limited to the context of a very specific milieu, etc. These parts are not so central to play though, what I want to do is give the players the information they need in order to allow the fiction to evolve dramatically in the direction addressing that premise and agenda. So, if there's a focus on finding a document in a safe, then that goal is in service of the above objectives.

I could see a scenario where the lack of the papers in the safe where the players assumed them to be would act as a reveal of betrayal, which in turn would challenge the beliefs of a character. Someone they trusted turns out to be a traitor, leading them to a wrong direction, or worse (but dramatically better) to a trap.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Question -
How does the GM actively reveal the fact that the will is in the safe before the players open the safe?

If an NPC tells them, fictionally how do they know it’s currently still there? How do they know the NPC isn’t lying? Etc. in short - how is this a true reveal of binding myth?

I think what actually happens in play is that binding myth is very rarely something that can be preemptively revealed to the PCs. The PCs must go to the location to sense firsthand the thing that was described, because until then it’s not binding. *One can get around this with meta reveals of such binding myths but that’s not how most RPGs are played. Most treat anything revealed indirectly to the PCs as non-binding until the characters can directly ‘see it for themselves’.

I think this is a 'hangover' in thinking that comes from Gygaxian play. In that trad view of play structure the GM and players roles are similar to FK. The players simply enact the roles of 'real people' with a flashlight view of a fixed world invented and presented to them by a, theoretically, disinterested referee. This is just not the case with Narrativist play. It is perfectly acceptable to present information to the players and let them act out some dramatically interesting RP in response.

It would be totally normal for the GM to say "The Secretary tells you the document is in the Mayor's safe, <wink> <wink>" Assuming myth had been pre-authored putting the document elsewhere (or making it irrelevant or non-existent) this would be a perfectly cromulent choice. The players can RP their character's going and looking for themselves, and that might serve them in arm-twisting the Secretary to reveal the REAL TRUTH, say. Or it might just be color, or they might RP "well, she's obviously lying, we throw her in a cell and go do X." I mean, this is a hypothetical situation, we can't really dig into it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I could see a scenario where the lack of the papers in the safe where the players assumed them to be would act as a reveal of betrayal, which in turn would challenge the beliefs of a character. Someone they trusted turns out to be a traitor, leading them to a wrong direction, or worse (but dramatically better) to a trap.

Yeah, I just noted that in my last post, so we can see that we do have a lot of the same thoughts. But in that case, PROBABLY it's not the case that some dice are tossed about the process of getting into the safe, though again this might vary depending on the particular game and what it addresses. Even DitV seems to provide for a way to create a sort of 'man vs environment' kind of conflict with the demonic forces stuff, though I am not well enough versed to comment on that game much.

Say in DW, where fiction is generally pretty loose going in, a reveal of a betrayal could be a fine GM move. It is pretty easy to see how it could put pressure on the PCs and force them to engage things like bonds and alignment statements, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here you're illustrating dissimilar premises of play.

As you imply, GM can actively reveal the dirt's location and commit to its veracity. Nothing prevents it other than the premises of the mode of play.

Restating he can is not answering how he can do this. I think if we can’t say how then he likely cannot.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this is a 'hangover' in thinking that comes from Gygaxian play. In that trad view of play structure the GM and players roles are similar to FK. The players simply enact the roles of 'real people' with a flashlight view of a fixed world invented and presented to them by a, theoretically, disinterested referee. This is just not the case with Narrativist play. It is perfectly acceptable to present information to the players and let them act out some dramatically interesting RP in response.

How can this be done?

It would be totally normal for the GM to say "The Secretary tells you the document is in the Mayor's safe, <wink> <wink>" Assuming myth had been pre-authored putting the document elsewhere (or making it irrelevant or non-existent) this would be a perfectly cromulent choice. The players can RP their character's going and looking for themselves, and that might serve them in arm-twisting the Secretary to reveal the REAL TRUTH, say. Or it might just be color, or they might RP "well, she's obviously lying, we throw her in a cell and go do X." I mean, this is a hypothetical situation, we can't really dig into it.

All your examples here amount to is - the myth is not binding.

 

[clearstream]

Lets back up a bit here: What is your goal? Mine is to present a series of situations which address the premise inherent in the play of the particular game in question. It's not a test of cleverness or an exercise in exploration, though skill and imagination may be significant factors in play at some level (see, for example BitD where these are definitely significant). So, to me, it's unusual for wandering about testing different hypotheses about where the GM hid the will to be a productive form of play. I mean, MAYBE in a very specific form of game focused on puzzle-solving and written very carefully in those terms MIGHT find that useful, but very rarely!

It would be misconstruing my post to believe it is intended to explain "a productive form of play". Rather it is intended to examine the scope of commitments plausibly made in prep.

So, the GM wants to focus on the premise, which may be explication of the PCs character, beliefs, etc. It could be more specific too, or limited to the context of a very specific milieu, etc. These parts are not so central to play though, what I want to do is give the players the information they need in order to allow the fiction to evolve dramatically in the direction addressing that premise and agenda. So, if there's a focus on finding a document in a safe, then that goal is in service of the above objectives. Having the PCs go through some elaborate scenario only to find nothing and end up right back where they started is USUALLY NOT going to be productive! So, we don't generally do that. The documents might NOT be in the safe, but if the players achieve success in respect to the mechanics, then the game will express fiction which includes accomplishing at least part of their goals, not ALL of them, as noted in some of @pemerton 's posts where he noted the DitV directive to 'scale down'.

We thus begin to see the overall shape of play that is being advocated by VB/RE/JH/etc. 'Myth' serves as context, and generates constraints and obstacles which challenge the PCs and carry play in the direction of addressing the premise of play. Certain 'rules' govern how and what the GM can present, the players are given some sort of mechanism by which they can specify how they address the premise, and usually at some level mechanics address intent (though not always in terms of the atomic task resolution mechanic directly).

Based on groundwork regarding scope of commitments, my #1,111 goes on to discuss the fabric or framework of play. Maybe that's similar to your "overall shape of play." And in that light I endorse arguments around "dissimilar premises" such as DitV directives versus Trad.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Restating he can is not answering how he can do this. I think if we can’t say how then he likely cannot.

Most GMs in these parts just SPEAK ENGLISH TO THEIR PLAYERS, lol. I guess the exact language used will vary in other necks of the woods, but I don't think that changes things. When I GM there is a simple open and frank discussion that happens about the fiction, although I definitely prefer the techniques outlined in DW regarding always speaking to the characters and such. I don't find that particularly restrictive as there's always plenty of ways to convey information in game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How can this be done?

All your examples here amount to is - the myth is not binding.

I disagree. Established myth is simply not secret. It MAY be not yet known to the players because it hasn't become relevant to anything yet, but it isn't generally speaking secret. Revelation of such fiction is not predicated on mechanical resolution mechanisms (at least not on 'fortune' based ones). So no issue exists. Again, Gygaxian Hangover.