This is either contradictory or trivial: trivial if the location of the will is staked in some fashion, otherwise contradictory.
RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
clearstream
(He, Him)
Indeed. I'm trying to understand what case is sought, that hasn't already been covered.
I have doubts about "binding" having its common sense of irrevocability in play. Fiction is malleable enough to dance around it, and only norms prevent participants undoing it. (Game Designer "Don't make me come over there and enforce the rules upon y'all.") Which would be digressive, unless it's what @FrogReaver wants to examine?
Crimson Longinus
Legend
As I understand it the question relates how to deliver this information as in-character information. A NPC might tell the characters the will is there, but if that is all that is established, that doesn't guarantee that the will actually is there. The NPC could be mistaken/lying. But of course if we are fine with the GM delivering meta information and the players acting on it, then such an issue is easily averted.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I mean that was not the scenario as I originally imagined it. I assumed that the papers never were there, but the NPC who the players trusted said they were there to lure the PCs in a trap. Now it could go like you say, but that is rather different scenario.
Now in my scenario the no myth is not related to the papers, it is related to the NPC. Because I think it is far more interesting if the betrayal is revealed (both to the players and the characters) when they are at the safe, and not when they interact with the NPC much earlier. Because if we reveal it to the players (but obviously not to the characters) already when they interact with the NPCs, then we just have the players to go though motions of walking into a trap and pretending to be shocked that it happened. It is more fun for it to be a genuine surprise, either because that's how GM set it up in a high myth game, or because that's how the dice decided it at the safe at a low myth one.
Right. And this is actually one big differences between different games. What actually are the allowed action declarations and how it is governed and enforced. In some it is codified somewhat clearly in the rules, in some it relies more on judgement of the group or the GM.
If (i) the NPC delivers the information to the PCs after they have been successful in a contest, and (ii) the players understand that one GM principle is to actively reveal the prepared fiction in play, and (iii) the GM does not give any cue that suggests this NPC does not actually possess the information, then (iv) the players can infer from the NPC told the PCs that X to it is the case that X.
In the BW actual play that I posted upthread, Aedhros's knowledge gained from the documents taken from the harbour office is an illustration of this (with the NPCs being mediated via the records they created), or at least has the same general structure: (i) the PCs Aedhros and Alicia found the documents as the result of a successful check to obtain cargo manifests for the vessel in question, and (ii) the rules of BW make success sacrosanct, and (iii) nothing in GM framing, or in consequences from prior conflicts, or the like, established any reason to be doubtful abut the manifests. Hence, (iv) when Aedhros found himself on the vessel he was able to use his knowledge of its contents to scavenge some high-end loot.
On the use of "meta-information":
In the BW actual play example, one consequence that I established was in a context where I was entitled by the rules of the game to introduce a time-based complication:
If the player fails a test in which he is working carefully, the result indicates he has run out of time - the bomb goes off, the
guards burst in, the old man dies, etc. By working carefully, the player is allowing the GM to introduce a serious complication upon failure. (Hub and Spokes, p 29)
guards burst in, the old man dies, etc. By working carefully, the player is allowing the GM to introduce a serious complication upon failure. (Hub and Spokes, p 29)
Thoth had failed his careful surgery test to heal the Lady Mina. No one at the table particularly cared about Mina, who was just a plot device to bring Thoth out of his workshop, and into the same scene as Father Simon. So I didn't establish a consequence that pertained to her; rather, I established a consequence that pertained to Thoth's prolonged absence from his workshop: his captive, George, had regained consciousness and escaped.
In the fiction, of course, Thoth does not know that George has escaped. So it would be poor play for Thoth's player to declare actions that would only make sense if his fictional position included Thoth knows that George has escaped the workshop. There is no formal process to "enforce" this - it's about etiquette and good taste.
On the other hand, it would be excellent play for Thoth's player to declare actions, or suggest consequences, that ironically play upon George's escape, or that create the potential for cascading consequences down the line. This makes the fiction more amusing and more compelling for everyone.
Two discussions of this that I know of in RPG books are from Over the Edge and Maelstrom Storytelling:
From "The Literary Edge" (an essay by Robin Laws, on p 193 of my 20th anniversary edition):
From Maelstrom Storytelling (p 114):
And from the Maelstrom Storytelling supplement, Dacartha Prime (p 92):
Think of all your actions as GM as literary devices. . . . When viewing role-playing as an art-form, rather than a game, it becomes less important to keep from the players things their characters wouldn't know. When characters separate, you can "cut" back and forth between scenes involving different characters, making each PC the focus of his own individual sub-plot. This technique has several benefits. First, it allows players to develop characters toward their goals without having to subsume them to the demands of the "party" as a whole. Secondly, it quickens the pace, allowing players to think while their characters are "off-screen", cutting down on dead time in which players thrash over decisions. When a character reaches an impasse, or an important climax, the GM can then "cut" to another character, giving the first player a chance to mentally regroup. Finally, the device is entertaining for players out of the spotlight, allowing them to sit back and enjoy the adventures of the others' characters.
The price of this is allowing players access to information known to PCs other than their own. But it's simple enough to rule out of play any actions they attempt based on forbidden knowledge. This doesn't mean there will be a shortage of mystery. Any OTE GM will still have secrets to spare. In fact, by allowing the number of sub-plots to increase, the GM is introducing even more questions the players will look forward to seeing answered.
The price of this is allowing players access to information known to PCs other than their own. But it's simple enough to rule out of play any actions they attempt based on forbidden knowledge. This doesn't mean there will be a shortage of mystery. Any OTE GM will still have secrets to spare. In fact, by allowing the number of sub-plots to increase, the GM is introducing even more questions the players will look forward to seeing answered.
From Maelstrom Storytelling (p 114):
Cut Scenes can even be added, where the narrator cuts to a scene in progress that does not involve the players (sic), and describes the action there. . . .
And from the Maelstrom Storytelling supplement, Dacartha Prime (p 92):
The character is the player's tool in the story, and the player contributes to the story using that tool. The trick is to make interesting choices that add flavour and interest to the game while remaining true to the role. Just doing what makes sense for the character is only half of it. Find new ways to approach dilemmas, and make choices that other players can "play off of". Information that the player has, but that their character does not have, should never be used to benefit the character - however, that information can be used to add flavour and colour to the story.
Example: Pendleton has a lot of money, all safely kept in a safe deposit box. His friend Lilith winds up with the key by accident, but doesn't know where it came from. Pendleton looks frantically for the key, describing it to his friend as he searches. "A little silver key? Like this one?" Lilith asks, showing him the key. "Yes. A silver key. Very much like that one," he answers, continuing to search
Example: Pendleton has a lot of money, all safely kept in a safe deposit box. His friend Lilith winds up with the key by accident, but doesn't know where it came from. Pendleton looks frantically for the key, describing it to his friend as he searches. "A little silver key? Like this one?" Lilith asks, showing him the key. "Yes. A silver key. Very much like that one," he answers, continuing to search
I think it's clear that this is a pretty different approach to the role of information in the game from, say, White Plume Mountain.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Right. So here the players knowing that the information was gained via a successful test that makes it binding is the channel for the meta information. The characters know no such thing, for all they know papers can be forgeries and people can be mistaken or lying to them etc.
Yes. There are fine techniques, nothing against this. It is different way to play, and has its own drawbacks and strengths.
In any case, I was just trying to guess what I suspected @FrogReaver meant, but they can clarify it when they have time and inclination.
Last edited:
In a D&D combat, the player rolls to attack, the GM declares a hit, the player then rolls damage, then observes the GM performing a calculation, and then the GM declares "You drop them".
In the fiction, the opponent might be playing possum, whether to try and escape being killed, or as part of so me more elaborate ruse. The character can't be sure otherwise; though they might find it more likely, given their overall knowledge of the situation, that they cut their foe down.
I don't really see that what I described is any different in structure. It's a game; the players have to have some sort of grasp on their fictional position if they are to make moves.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I mean unless the death of an NPC was described in such gruesome detail that it leaves no doubt about their their newly extinct status, then indeed it would rely on meta knowledge to assume that they're dead. Though at least in 5e such meta assumption could be wrong, as it is perfectly allowable to have important NPCs use the same dying rules than the PCs do, and sometimes I have.
clearstream
(He, Him)
As well as the approach described by @pemerton above, I've observed a range of other practices for this, including -
Player narrates their foes' deaths, heavily implying certainty at a meta-level that the given foe is dead.
GM: Describe how you finish them?
GM states target AC up front, and player rolls damage without intervening GM narration.
Player: What do I need to hit?
GM: 12
Player: 14... that's... 8 damage.
Average HP are used for foes, and players are permitted to track them.
Player: It's a badger, right? 3 HP. It's down to 1 from the magic missile.
Which makes me wonder how often system parameters are counted into information to actively share?
GM: It's a black pudding. Corrosive touch, d10 damage that ignores armor. 15 hit points and 1 armor. (from Dungeon World.)
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Right. Outside Meta channels I don’t see how players can be made aware of what is binding myth. The most common meta channel for this being resolution of a knowledge or sensory ‘skill’. Are there any methods that don’t rely on resolution mechanics or dm meta speak. If not what does that say about being able to actively reveal binding myths to players through fictional narration?
