GM fiat - an illustration

Pedantic said:

That's what the role-playing is for, that's the whole reason you set up genre constraints and build characters within a milieu and all that. The whole point of characters is to want things, either intrinsically (I want revenge on my brother's killer) or extrinsically (this dragon will pay me a large sum of money to rescue their eggs). GMing is about either facilitating the former (and spotting when new motivations pop up that can be engaged with) or presenting opportunities for the latter (the infamous hook).

The unique appeal of the medium is that it lets players set their own goals, and continue play after evaluating whether they've met them or not.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm incorrect but to me the notion of play to find out seems to entail a more passive stance on the players part. I think that's where the disconnect is most likely occurring.

Like if all playing to find out means is that we are playing to find out if the player achieves their goal, then I think all RPG's should be characterized as playing to find out.

FrogReaver said:

Maybe I'm incorrect but to me the notion of play to find out seems to entail a more passive stance on the players part. I think that's where the disconnect is most likely occurring.

Like if all playing to find out means is that we are playing to find out if the player achieves their goal, then I think all RPG's should be characterized as playing to find out.

Click to expand...

I think I misinterpreted @thefutilist there, that question at the end of the post I was responding to seemed targeted at the narrativist camp, not the kind of gameplay I was talking about.

Personally, I've never internalized what precisely is meant by "play to find out." It seems to live in some middle ground between playing toward a goal and making up what happens next beat by beat, and I just have accepted that I'm simply lacking whatever drive makes it uniquely interesting. Every time it's explained, I find myself squinting at what looks like some doublethink around needing to have multiple, conflicting goals without a clear matrix for prioritizing them moment to moment.

FrogReaver said:

Here is a section from the GM Best Practices chapter of Blades in the Dark.



@Crimson Longinus I think you may find this section particularly relevant to the ongoing Blades in the Dark discussions.

Click to expand...

Yes, I ma quite familiar with that paragraph. It quite clearly illustrates the vagueness of myth in Blades compared to more trad approach. But like the prep in trad game this "cloud of potential" is also mainly created by the GM, and it is the GM who chooses what about it to actualise. But they really are doing this on their own whim. Are there guards dogs to be avoided? GM decides. Are there statues that help you sneak through the yard? The GM decides. Are there fancy locks that need to be picked? The GM decides. Etc. etc. And as this all is decided on the fly, instead of being predetermined, there really is no objective measure of when the score is "finished."

And I am absolutely sure, that to most GMs how well the party is doing overall, will impact what the GM will frame next. Like if they do super well early on, the GM will be more willing to frame more obstacles than if they did terribly early on. Because there is not any objective benchmark for how much there should be, not even a self imposed one in form of binding prep.

AbdulAlhazred said:

I would parse it a bit differently. The rules of 1KA include, effectively, 'no turtling'. Beyond that the game structure is such that, assuming the GM is doing their job, turtling will not actually benefit the characters. Nobunaga is coming, war is coming, nobody will be able to sit it out. At best doing so will be as hard and dangerous as taking a side.

Click to expand...

Yeah but is the goal of the player the same as the character? To tie this into what @FrogReaver said.


So I'm playing Apocalypse World. One of the things I'm interested in seeing is if Midnight will ever actually face her own mortal culpability for the things she's done. That's not a goal of the character. It's not a goal for me, the player, because I'm open to it going one way or the other. Although since I'm also the audience, I might be rooting for it to go one way but I'm committed to making the decision with integrity. I mean I can just decide she does in fact wake up one morning and face up to her moral culpability that would seem to me to defeat the point of role-playing, I want the fictional circumstances to inspire me, one way or the other. (that's what I mean by playing to find out)

So let's say that her girlfriend, the skinner, is shot and dying because she went along with Midnight on some stupid scheme. The skinner is dying and Midnight is holding her, watching her die. Me, the player feels all sorts of ways about this. Then the skinner says to midnight 'don't blame yourself.'

I, the player, have to react to that. In a flash of inspiration brought about by the fictional circumstances I realise and have midnight realise, that she does in fact blame herself. And the dam bursts.

Am I making the distinction clear between: What I'm interested in finding out as a player v the characters goals v me having a goal as an end, something to work towards.

The whole game state paradigm doesn't seem to describe the above sequence of play very well.

Pedantic said:

I think I misinterpreted @thefutilist there, that question at the end of the post I was responding to seemed targeted at the narrativist camp, not the kind of gameplay I was talking about.

Personally, I've never internalized what precisely is meant by "play to find out." It seems to live in some middle ground between playing toward a goal and making up what happens next beat by beat, and I just have accepted that I'm simply lacking whatever drive makes it uniquely interesting. Every time it's explained, I find myself squinting at what looks like some doublethink around needing to have multiple, conflicting goals without a clear matrix for prioritizing them moment to moment.

Click to expand...

I think it is pretty much what it says on the tin. Nobody knows where the story will go, nor what we will learn about the characters, who they will turn out to be. Narrativist play focuses a lens on character. Character is under pressure, players have asserted things about the PCs, but none of it is sacrosanct. What happens if Hino is called on to destroy Suetsuna? Does her loyalty to Iga win out over her respect for him? Play to find out. In classic D&D trad play the player just makes up an answer, the question is not guaranteed to even get asked.

So, I agree with @FrogReaver that every game is finding out stuff, but Play To Find Out is central to Narrativist play in a way it isn't normally in trad play, and NEVER is in what is labeled neo-trad.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Play to find out. In classic D&D trad play the player just makes up an answer, the question is not guaranteed to even get asked.

Click to expand...

Would you say that in my play example given above, the player is just making it up?

Crimson Longinus said:

Yes, I ma quite familiar with that paragraph. It quite clearly illustrates the vagueness of myth in Blades compared to more trad approach. But like the prep in trad game this "cloud of potential" is also mainly created by the GM, and it is the GM who chooses what about it to actualise. But they really are doing this on their own whim. Are there guards dogs to be avoided? GM decides. Are there statues that help you sneak through the yard? The GM decides. Are there fancy locks that need to be picked? The GM decides. Etc. etc. And as this all is decided on the fly, instead of being predetermined, there really is no objective measure of when the score is "finished."

And I am absolutely sure, that to most GMs how well the party is doing overall, will impact what the GM will frame next. Like if they do super well early on, the GM will be more willing to frame more obstacles than if they did terribly early on. Because there is not any objective benchmark for how much there should be, not even a self imposed one in form of binding prep.

Click to expand...

This is true, BitD doesn't specify a number of obstacles, just an objective for the score, which will end the score mechanically when achieved. Clearly there's a degree of danger which is challenging, but it is mostly up to the GM to eyeball that. So, IMHO, the focus of gamism in BitD is not the score. The focus is more on the longer resource game and the crew, territory, relationships with others, etc. There's also the aspect of clocks, DTAs, and whatnot. These are all pretty well spelled out by the rules.

And note that as the players decide where to allocate pips and buy upgrades they will define the types of action they are suited for. This you need to pick scores which suit your build. Surely a cutter who is sneaking around investigating with bad scores in the relevant abilities and decked in armor will fare worse than he would in a fight

AbdulAlhazred said:

I think it is pretty much what it says on the tin. Nobody knows where the story will go, nor what we will learn about the characters, who they will turn out to be. Narrativist play focuses a lens on character. Character is under pressure, players have asserted things about the PCs, but none of it is sacrosanct. What happens if Hino is called on to destroy Suetsuna? Does her loyalty to Iga win out over her respect for him? Play to find out. In classic D&D trad play the player just makes up an answer, the question is not guaranteed to even get asked.

So, I agree with @FrogReaver that every game is finding out stuff, but Play To Find Out is central to Narrativist play in a way it isn't normally in trad play, and NEVER is in what is labeled neo-trad.

Click to expand...

Tying this thought back to the goals part of the discussion. Your scenario above and the generalization of it neither seem to entail a player goal (other than ‘see what happens’ if one would even count something like that as a player goal).

So the question really boils down to is there a player goal in that scenario and if so what? And if not does that say anything about the gamism of such a game?

Note: I make no claim or even have concrete thoughts about whether gamism is good or bad. This isn’t a trap or gotcha. I’m genuinely curious.

thefutilist said:

Would you say that in my play example given above, the player is just making it up?

Click to expand...

Sorry I may have missed it. I'm just saying, in 1KA, for example, if I do something significant that impacts the trajectory of my character, I almost certainly need to resist or indulge an attachment, or maybe some other move. I can't just say "I stab him in the back". The dice could dictate "no, you aren't able to overcome your sense of honor" or whatever.

@AbdulAlhazred

Would it be correct to characterize the type of game you bring up as quite distinct from blades in the dark? im kind of getting that vibe but not sure. I’m sure im guilty at times of lumping some things together that shouldn’t be and wondering if this is one.