GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

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

I might be quibbling. And this is just my point of view from my little corner of the hobby (which might not align with what other sandbox GMs will tell you). But a sandbox is all about giving players freedom to explore wherever. There isn't an adventure planned for that night. There can be, but the players are always free to ignore it or strike out in whatever direction they want. A situational scenario is planned. You have a scenario set up, but you don't plan out anything beyond the initial set up. So you could have a sequence of monsters of the week or missions of the week all done as situational. But in my view that format ports well into a sandbox (and I think a lot of GMs were always doing this in a sandbox anyways). Or to point to Feast of Goblyns, where they have the concept of a 'wandering major encounter' where the NPCs are expected to plot, move and act in accordance with their goals and in response to player actions. That was a very structured 90s adventure. It had moments that were supposed to happen. But it also had this more free side of treating NPCs and PCs as chemicals reacting together. In a way situational adventures are closer to the language @pemerton is using in that it is very much about the GMs reaction to what the players do (except I would say the action and reaction is much more broad stroke than focused on the back and forth of the conversation)

 

[darkbard]

I use words and descriptions that fit what I think is happening at the table and what I think will help people replicate that.

How does "do what I think the NPC would do in the situation" or "consider what components of a scene seem realistic" or similar judgment without additional guidance in the form of articulated principles and goals of play help others replicate your mode of play? Several times you have been asked to articulate the principles etc that guide your play, but beyond such vagaries you have not done that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How does "do what I think the NPC would do in the situation" or "consider what components of a scene seem realistic" or similar judgment without additional guidance in the form of articulated principles and goals of play help others replicate your mode of play? Several times you have been asked to articulate the principles etc that guide your play, but beyond such vagaries you have not done that.

I am honestly not sure what would satisfy you. I feel like I have articulated clear ideas of play here. It is also important to note we were talking specifically about mystery adventures in most of this thread (I would give different prep and guiding principle advice for those than I would for say a sandbox or monster of the week). It depends on the type of adventure and game I am running. But I have explained what principles guide my GMing. I think they are quite clear and easy to understand. And I have found people grasp what I am talking about quite well. but I am also not especially prescriptive. I tell people what works for me, but I think everyone has to adapt what I say to their own style and table.

And I am happy to engage with this side of the discussion, but only if it is a good faith conversation. In the past when I have tried to really explore with you guys what types of games I run it does feel a bit antagonistic and more like I am on trial. So why would I engage with that?

 

[Gimby]

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.

If I'm designing a new game or indeed just a mod map for Oblivion, I'll want to consider the first case - control systems are important in ensuring the game in enjoyable. The limitations of staring at a screen compared to actually existing in a world will also inform how I need to present the world to the player as it limits the range of senses and feedback.

 

[FrogReaver]

If I'm designing a new game or indeed just a mod map for Oblivion, I'll want to consider the first case - control systems are important in ensuring the game in enjoyable. The limitations of staring at a screen compared to actually existing in a world will also inform how I need to present the world to the player as it limits the range of senses and feedback.

I think that’s still missing half of the equation.

There is a map of meaning between the pressing of the real world buttons and the results in the virtual world that ultimately get output to the player via various output devices (haptics, monitor, speakers, etc).

Now there are real world limitations around the actual physical controls that must be considered. So you are right, we cannot just ignore that aspect. But the existence of that map of meaning means we do not need to talk about the real world game controls in order to understand what’s actually occurring in the game. It means we can also talk about what’s happening in terms of the virtual world actions.

It’s also my assertion that only talking about the physical world aspects actually leaves out nearly all the context around why the player is taking whatever physical world action he is taking. That context requires a map of meaning between the physical and virtual and it tends to be much easier to talk about when referencing the virtual side of that mapping.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My contrast of passivity was solely in relation to player goals. I thought the context of my post was clear in that regard, maybe not? Anyways, the examples I keep seeing brought up in that respect are about character drama caused by conflicting internal priorities. It's even been said by some (not sure if you agree) that if there's not some mechanic that informs which priority wins out that it's not playing to find out. That's where the passivity I am talking about comes in. The player isn't actively picking and working toward some player goal in these examples, instead he's not taking a side (in regards to that internal conflict) and just 'playing to find out' (that's the passivity i talk about).

Perhaps a more palatable framing would be that the players goal is to 'play to find out which priority the character will choose'. In any event, I think what I'm contrasting should be clear now.

Also note for clarity: The AW may have extremely active players in other ways, I'm not making any comment about that, just in relation to the above.

This is all extremely dynamic. In fact I would go so far as to say that the single most salient reason that Narrativist play is not the vast majority of all RPG play is squarely attributable to the fact that it demands commitment and high levels of player engagement at the table.

I'll use my 1KA PC as an example. Clearly character build is pretty engaging, I have to establish four key things. First my character's drive has to be defined, with choices being things like loyalty, honor, ambition, wealth, etc. This is a highly focused game, so there are limited choices. Next I have to establish my bond with each other PC, or possibly NPCs, usually 3 total. I left my 3rd one open as there were 2 other PCs. These can be written as anything, but obviously collaboration with other players is needed. So that's first, and goes beyond the minimal 'roll it up' where a player can just make desultory choices. We also picked roles and allegiances, which is roughly class, and rings (abilities).

Now in play, I have to actively embody this character. I'm the widow of a Ji-Samurai of Iga, loyal to the Iga Sokoku Ikki, in conflict with the forces of Oda Nobunaga. Immediately the GM gives us some establishing scenes to define our bonds. I interact with Suetsuna (years ago). We are propelled into a fraught situation where he aquits himself well, I remark that I admire him as an honorable man, and end up with a +1 there (bond mechanics can compel characters if the bond gets too strong).

Several rolls happened here, the +1 came from a consequence of one of them where I ended up rolling low on something or other to do with Suetsuna.

My point is, every scene is replete with choices bearing directly on who I am in character. Nobody is forcing me down any path. When spotted by Suetsuna I try to escape. When I see a priest threatened, I act to stop Oda from hurting him. I decided what the bond with Suetsuna is.

There's nothing passive going on here at all. I don't know what will happen, and maybe in some situations my character can't act exactly as I would like, but the choices are mine, who she is, it's up to me. Dice just help us.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is all extremely dynamic. In fact I would go so far as to say that the single most salient reason that Narrativist play is not the vast majority of all RPG play is squarely attributable to the fact that it demands commitment and high levels of player engagement at the table.

I'll use my 1KA PC as an example. Clearly character build is pretty engaging, I have to establish four key things. First my character's drive has to be defined, with choices being things like loyalty, honor, ambition, wealth, etc. This is a highly focused game, so there are limited choices. Next I have to establish my bond with each other PC, or possibly NPCs, usually 3 total. I left my 3rd one open as there were 2 other PCs. These can be written as anything, but obviously collaboration with other players is needed. So that's first, and goes beyond the minimal 'roll it up' where a player can just make desultory choices. We also picked roles and allegiances, which is roughly class, and rings (abilities).

Now in play, I have to actively embody this character. I'm the widow of a Ji-Samurai of Iga, loyal to the Iga Sokoku Ikki, in conflict with the forces of Oda Nobunaga. Immediately the GM gives us some establishing scenes to define our bonds. I interact with Suetsuna (years ago). We are propelled into a fraught situation where he aquits himself well, I remark that I admire him as an honorable man, and end up with a +1 there (bond mechanics can compel characters if the bond gets too strong).

Several rolls happened here, the +1 came from a consequence of one of them where I ended up rolling low on something or other to do with Suetsuna.

My point is, every scene is replete with choices bearing directly on who I am in character. Nobody is forcing me down any path. When spotted by Suetsuna I try to escape. When I see a priest threatened, I act to stop Oda from hurting him. I decided what the bond with Suetsuna is.

There's nothing passive going on here at all. I don't know what will happen, and maybe in some situations my character can't act exactly as I would like, but the choices are mine, who she is, it's up to me. Dice just help us.

This is all interesting. And as I said I’m not talking about passive/active as you seem to be using it here (a valid use for sure but not what I meant by it).

Again my use was in relation to player goals, especially when there are 2 conflicting ones and the dice have to decide (was it you or someone else that claimed without the dice making such decisions one isn’t playing to find out?).

The issue is I don’t see any of those kinds of things clearly stated here and so the kind of active/passive I talked about isn’t readily observable due to those limitations of the example.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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)

I don't understand how this rapprochement or alignment can ever exist. The World of the Apocalypse is an f'd up broken, brutal world where when you wake up in the morning you gotta decide between eating your dog for breakfast or stealing it at gunpoint from the people down the road. It's all conflict, or maybe sometimes a little socializing to muster support or gain protection.

If the GM is not spinning threats at you and everyone is a big happy community, you're not playing AW.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In a way situational adventures are closer to the language @pemerton is using in that it is very much about the GMs reaction to what the players do (except I would say the action and reaction is much more broad stroke than focused on the back and forth of the conversation)

But I would expect them that the GM is going back, thinking up some situations they deem interesting, and introducing them into play at some point. Many of those may be spun off prior action. The PCs freed some kobold slaves, who bring them a treasure map! It could get more involved than that, but IME there's an 'operational' kind of thing that goes on here.

I ran a lot of this general sort of play in the AD&D era. Honestly any durable campaign using traddish techniques will kind of land here by name level, as classic play kind of stops working, or else resembles ToH more and more. If you look at Gygax's play, it converged mostly to this kind of stuff.

But I agree with you, the immediacy is a difference with Narrativist play. There's also the focus on more of an operational, this is the party and the adventure, thing.

But I agree with others, this is pretty nebulous. Deeper, more detailed looks at what the rules, the GM, the players, and the 'process of play', the actual laying out of what happens is hugely valuable.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

So I know this post was not directed at me, but reading it prompted some questions for me. I read the short blog on situational GMing, so I have an idea what's meant there.

What makes it different than sandbox?

What's the difference between situational GMing and living adventure?

What would be a mainstream adventure?

How can all these different things be "done in sandbox"?