@pemerton
Most of us don't trust your analysis of RPG's in general because we don't agree at all with your analysis of the non-narrativist games we play. So, as an example, when you give your analysis of how a game like TB2e or game mechanic in TB2e works, that may be plenty for someone that generally trusts your analysis, but for those of us who don't we need to see pretty much all the nitty gritty details so we can make up our own minds using our own terms.
I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, i know it's really hard to account for all the nitty gritty details and you've tried at least in the recent pages to provide those details, but I believe this lack of trust may be a source of reoccurring frustration for you in these discussions. When we don't believe something from your analysis right off (or sometimes ever), it's not because we think you are lying or mistaken about the factual elements behind the analysis, it's because we know we don't typically agree with your analysis of those factual elements in other games. This is especially relevant when we get a barebones description of some game element from a game we aren't familiar with (or lack of description of other game element dependencies) and then your analysis conclusion is that it's like X from D&D or other game which doesn't really provide us enough to determine whether we agree with your conclusion.
Anyways, just an observation, I don't think there's really any action to be taken on it, other than simple awareness on all sides.
I have dozens and dozens of actual play posts. I've linked to some of them in this thread. You can read them if you like.
I've watched some of
@Bedrockgames and
@robertsconley's actual play videos. In this thread, I've seen the latter post notes for a "world in motion" campaign which seem to me, and which he has agreed, are basically the same (technique-wise) as the ones that I posted from my campaign of 30 to 35 years ago.
I don't recall ever having any trouble making sense of your accounts of how you play RPGs.
I don't think I post anything mysterious. It's not hard to understand, for instance, how to play Burning Wheel. I have had posters seem incredulous in the face of the instruction to a GM that
everything they do should be done keeping in mind player-established priorities for the players' PCs. But incredulity of that sort is not my problem.
I do read posts in which various posters - including, it seems to me, you from time to time - want to assert simultaneously that a GM can exercise far more control over the content, theme, stakes etc of play than Burning Wheel directs them too
and yet be a game in which the GM is exercising no more control than a Burning Wheel GM. To me that seems contradictory, and I've never seen an account of actual play that illustrates it happening.
I also see posts which seem to assert that there is a fundamental difference between (say) rolling on a wandering monster table and learning that (for instance) 5 Orcs turn up, and rolling on a Camp Events table and learning (for instance) that one Dire Wolf turns up. But what the difference is, is not spelled out. After all, both involve introducing a new element into the fiction. Both are sensitive to the usual sort of in-fiction stuff: where the PCs are, what sort of effort they are making to conceal/protect their camp, etc.
When a "world in motion" GM rolls up 5 Orcs, that GM thinks about
the stuff they have authored and imagined about Orcs and
the stuff they have authored and imagined about this location and, from all that stuff, comes up with a story about what 5 Orcs are doing here.
When I rolled up a Dire Wolf, I thought about
what is the established fiction - which included the Moathouse in the distance - and
how can I build on what the players are trying to have their PCs do - which included
trying to get to the Moathouse. I also had in mind the description of Dire Wolves (Scholar's Guide, p 182):
These massive, rangy wolves are possessed of a savage lupine intellect - some can even speak the languages of goblins or humans.
In the wild, they run in packs and are fiercely territorial; they will not hesitate to attack if threatened or if their cubs are in danger. They tend to be shy creatures but will descend upon isolated settlements if hungry enough. Hobgoblins and orcs frequently capture and enslave dire wolves, training them as brutal mounts.
I knew that the Moathouse was inhabited by human bandits, Gnolls and Bugbears; and was led by the Half-Elf Lareth the Beautiful, who "has been sent into this area to rebuild a force of human and Trollish fighter so as to gather loot and restore the Temple to its former glory, joining the Eye of Fire with the Black Void". (In TB2e, "troll" has the same meaning, more-or-less, as does "humanoid" or "giant class" in classic D&D.)
So it did not seem unlikely that there would be a Dire Wolf working with the Moathouse forces, and acting as a scout. And so I deemed it thus!
Some people would not see any difference between what I have described myself as doing, and what the "world in motion" GM does. If there is a difference, it is rather slight, and is the same as what I have frequently posted - the fundamental difference between player-driven RPGing, and GM-driven RPGing, is
the basis on which or, if you prefer,
the principles whereby the GM makes decisions about the fiction they introduce.
In this particular example, it was the decision to give the Dire Wolf a motivation and origin story, within the fiction, that bound the PCs (and thereby the players) more tightly to their Moathouse goal. As a GM, I take cues from the players.
If things take their normal course, than what I now expect, in response to this post, is to be told how (i) "world in motion" GMs also take cues from their players, but (ii) how they also create genuine "living" worlds rather than cardboard cut-outs, stage scenery etc because they draw upon content that has been authored without having the players in mind. It will also be emphasised that (iii) coming to know that non-player-driven content is key to the game experience, although (iv) it's reductive to mention that key to the game experience is the players coming to know that content.
