GM fiat - an illustration

[FrogReaver]

The only thing I am militant against is obscurantism.

When I read people posting about thee players exploring the setting, for instance, I want to know what is actually happening in play.

Like, on a couple of occasions I've had the opportunity to "explore" Rome. I walked around, looked at buildings, was surprised by fountains and stairways and doorways that I wasn't expecting. I was awestruck by the Pieta.

But if I told you I had "explored" Rome when, what I had actually done, was to sit opposite a friend who answered questions I asked by reading from a Lonely Planet guide, that would be ridiculous.

If what is happening in play is that the GM is telling the players things, then I don't see why we can't talk about that. If those things are either taken wholesale from, or very closely derived, from things that the GM (or the module author, or whatever) wrote down in advance, then I don't see why we can't talk about that.

And the notion that it is dismissive to do so is absurd. It's not dismissing someone's play to set about actually describing the process that occurs when they engage in it.

So here's an example.

Consider the computer RPG Oblivion.

I can describe what the player does in a few different but all technically accurate ways. (non-exhaustive).
1. The player is clicking his mouse and mashing his keyboard keys while staring at a screen and sitting in his desk chair.
2. The player is exploring the world of Oblivion.

Both are true. If you want to be dismissive of video games in general you may go solely with the first description, it makes the activity sound boring, pointless, etc. If you want to explain what the player is doing when he's clicking, mashing keys and staring at the screen then you might say exploring the world of Oblivion. In other words, the players goal isn't to click the mouse, mash keyboard buttons, or stare at the screen, that's just the means by which he achieves his goal of exploring the world of Oblivion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But it doesn't seem like you are using any robust analysis in this argument, which seems to rest on the rhetoric of falling back upon vagaries disguised by your claims of natural language. What, beyond revealing what is written in the GM's notes, does your toolbox of exploration analysis reveal about the process of your play specifically? Again, as @pemerton notes above, there is nothing inherently wrong about gameplay that is based upon a GM revealing their notes being the focus of play! Except you oppose this characterization as somehow demeaning (not capturing "the magic") on a personal level.

Except we aren't simply using this language, we are explaining what we mean. I don't know what you mean by robust analysis, but I use words and descriptions that fit what I think is happening at the table and what I think will help people replicate that.

I doubt you will ever find satisfaction of this kind from these arguments, largely because, to this observer, at least, you refuse to confront the actual processes at play in your game. When your participation boils down to opposing an argument as reductionist because you object to how that makes you feel rather than what insights it may offer, how can you hope to profit from these discussions?

This is exactly the attitude that bothers people. I am fine with you having a model to understand what occurs at the table. But we are talking about human interaction and conversation and you act as if you have it perfectly broken down, and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your analysis is in denial. This is the aspect of your approach that people find infuriating (and frankly I think it is a huge blind spot for you guys). Just look at your language "refuse to confront the actual process". This is very antagonizing (and it is incredibly arrogant IMO)

I would reject your characterization of my participation. But I also can't control how you feel about my posts

 

[zakael19]

I guess 'play to find out' is really about the GM. In a heavily story-before game, the main beats are known to the GM in advance, but probably not to the players. In heavily story-now play, no-one knows the beats in advance.

My understanding is it’s two fold, and absolutely on al sides of the table. It’s about the game writ large (we play blades to find out if our fledgling crew can thrive amongst the competing threats & the scoundrels own vices), and about the moment to moment questions that arise in the course of the game. Will Drexler be able to take down the rival gang leader? What’s the ramifications of Bell’s choice back there? Will the parents of the missing boy forgive Meredith? What will happen when Marshall gets to Marshedge and seeks to trade away their valuable and dangerous artifacts?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I guess 'play to find out' is really about the GM. In a heavily story-before game, the main beats are known to the GM in advance, but probably not to the players. In heavily story-now play, no-one knows the beats in advance.

It doesn't use play to find out as a term but this was an idea I remember coming across this in 2009 by Clash Bowley in more OSR circles, and it fit what I had been calling Living Adventures prior to that point (which was just a term I pulled from Feast of Goblyns in its description of how to run NPCs). But the idea is very much play to see what happens. This is just a pretty quick explanation (and there are variations on this idea all over the map). This piece isn't claiming to describe something new. It is an approach lots of GMs were taking. The Alexandrian had a similar idea if I recall in Don't Prep Plots, Prep Situations (would link it but the page seems a little funny today). I don't remember off-hand when that came out though. Not saying this is the same as play to find out, but mentioning it because it seems like it might be a parallel movement among more old school gamers at the time

 

[AnotherGuy]

My contrast of passivity was solely in relation to player goals.

I'm not sure how you're measuring player goals to be more active in D&D. Could you elaborate on why you think that is?

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't use play to find out as a term but this was an idea I remember coming across this in 2009 by Clash Bowley in more OSR circles, and it fit what I had been calling Living Adventures prior to that point (which was just a term I pulled from Feast of Goblyns in its description of how to run NPCs). But the idea is very much play to see what happens. This is just a pretty quick explanation (and there are variations on this idea all over the map). This piece isn't claiming to describe something new. It is an approach lots of GMs were taking. The Alexandrian had a similar idea if I recall in Don't Prep Plots, Prep Situations (would link it but the page seems a little funny today). I don't remember off-hand when that came out though. Not saying this is the same as play to find out, but mentioning it because it seems like it might be a parallel movement among more old school gamers at the time

Yeah, I see quite a few parallels with living world sandbox styles and narrativism, at least as it’s often explained here.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not sure how you're measuring player goals to be more active in D&D. Could you elaborate on why you think that is?

Sure, but I think I already explained that. What specific details from my previous explanation do you want elaborated on?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, I see quite a few parallels with living world sandbox styles and narrativism, at least as it’s often explained here.

To be clear situational GMing was slightly different from sandbox. At least in my view there is an important distinction. But sandbox was really becoming popular among the crowd where things like situational GMing were being discussed. You can do situational and living adventure in a sandbox, but you can also do more mainstream type adventures that way as well

 

[FrogReaver]

To be clear situational GMing was slightly different from sandbox. At least in my view there is an important distinction. But sandbox was really becoming popular among the crowd where things like situational GMing were being discussed. You can do situational and living adventure in a sandbox, but you can also do more mainstream type adventures that way as well

Interesting. Though not sure I really grasp the distinction there.

 

[thefutilist]

Not necessarily. I think in neo-trad play the player would make the decision and that would be that, the story arc goes on how they envisaged it, and probably the choice was planned in some degree well in advance. In Story Now play, sure the player might simply declare something like "I realize how wrong I was." What happens next there depends on the system. AW says "OK, major change in character trajectory, maybe a new playbook." 1KA says "Wait a minute, you must struggle with yourself, what are your attachments? OK, that looks like an Overcome and Attachment to Self! If you fail, then you have unresolved doubts and you try to reject this self-revelation." 1KA could also allow other options, you realize your culpability, and your Self rating goes to +3, you are incapacitated with grief for 3 days, during which time <terrible thing> happens/you are captured by Nobunaga and thrown into a dungeon (your choice). Lots of stuff could happen there. You were in charge of what the character confronted, and to some degree the consequences of the results, but it isn't like you just declare what the impact is on your character.

I'd also note that in AW the GM is most certainly free to make stuff happen which follows from the fiction of you accepting responsibility. Your henchman decides you're an idiot and steals half your stuff and runs off, etc. Exactly what the scope of the GM's response will be is going to depend on the larger situation too. If the result is you stop paying attention to some threat, well, guess what? It manifests, hard move baby! But in better circumstances maybe your henchman just starts to look at you weird and you find some of your equipment stowed in his pack, like he's thinking about splitting...

Yeah I think I'm on board with you. The OC player is non-responsive to the fiction in the same way that a trad GM is. I'm also with you on personality mechanics, I'm neutral on whether they are good or bad, it depends on how they're used and in what context.

What I do think is that:

The GM having ultra strong fiat power is no problem because of artistic constraints (NOT system constraints, artistic)

Failure to recognise that is, as per the thread subject, a huge blind spot for many Narrativist players

I probably disagree with you about AW but I think AW is usually interpreted though a no-myth lens. I think that AW only really works if the GM is giving the NPC's their due. So initially there's spaces to make moves ex-nihilo (no-myth) but they start reducing really fast and the GM has to begin shifting to making NPC choices based on the established fiction, back story, stakes questions. And in a lot of cases this means there is nothing to conflict with the PC's priorities. When all such sources of conflict have disappeared then we've seen what the PC's have made of their world and the initial question the game asked gets answered. (one valid issue with AW is that this isn't hard capped enough, which is why I think Vincent made the choices he did in Burned Over where the situation has more natural boundaries and a clearer end state)