Search results

The constraints on the GM in a narrative game are pretty much the same as on a player in any other RPG. Is a player a servant of GM's desires in trad play?

Because "bad faith DMing" (which, I assume, is anything than you don't like?) is impossible to distinguish from "good faith DMing". Violation of No Myth, on the other hand, is immediately apparent to everyone at the table.

Eh? I think you are overcomplicating things. What is said next is influenced by the unknown inner state of the person saying it (I assume, you mean "people aren't telepaths"), yeah. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. To use Apocalypse World as a concrete example: there are rules on...

...yes? That's the entire point of No Myth: only things that are known to players can be used as a basis for application of mechanics. No Myth isn't particularly deep: it just rejects the notion that things that GM knows (what she prepped, what is written in the module, what she made up right...

How? The only binding things are things that are established in the game (aka known to players). The only way it can become yes-myth is if the players get replaced, and GM forgets that they can't know things that happened before they joined, and refuses to elaborate and explain.

WWN could not possibly be the original campaign, as it came six years latter than BitD. My bet is that it was World of Dungeons (which is what I recall being mentioned, but can't find sources now).

It happened a thousand years ago, pretty much all the culture of Doskvol and the rest of Shattered Isles developed in a post-cataclysm world. Like, idk, a game about criminals in real world Saint Petersburg probably should consider the consequences of the fall of Soviet Union, but, say, Siege...

No, because what is not known to the players cannot influence the resolution. You can leave the No-Myth land but stay close, though, like in Blades in the Dark it's possible to say: — Risky position, limited effect — Why limited? — Unknown factors. But in Blades, player can do a whole bunch of...

Just throwing it here, because I thought of an illustrative example and why not.

I intended to go paragraph-by-paragraph through your post and then completely forgot. Subverting expectations and turning the game from political intrigues into a dungeon-crawl would not violate No Myth play. Drugging PCs is trickier, and, uhm... Depends. In Dungeon World, if someone tries to...

Because the players know what is established? I'm not sure if I understand the question. It needs no enforcement, because it's impossible to subvert anything without player knowledge. No Myth play rejects the idea that GM can write "door to storage area is booby-trapped" in her notebook and...

Simple: they don't. The answer to the question "is this thing happening because GM came up with it right here, or did they envision a cool scene and want to bring it forth?" is "who cares?". Let's say you are running Dungeon World. You recently replayed Sekiro and were reminded of how cool the...

Hands down, Team Fortress 2.

There's Light, which as far as I know is Destiny with serial numbers filled off

Close/Near/Far, or zones, or, at least, abstract squares.

That is the point, though. There's no and can't be no skilled play in D&D, because the only possible skill being expressed is players' ability to please the GM who pretends to be impartial. Some even go further and gaslight themselves into thinking that they are actually impartial, and their...

How this improvised trap is actually made? What roll (if any) should be made? What will be the DC? What makes a trap made out of a rope and a bow legitimate, and one made out of old ration another PC had in the backpack not?

The difference is that in a Story Now game no one pretends like there's anything more than "this sounds cool!" to GM's decision making and everybody understands that the actions the characters take are only vaguely correlated with whether they succeed or not. The goal of the process is to have...

...it started with OSR, which heavily prides itself on players coming up with creative solutions to problems. Like, things covered by a combat mini-game are only a small part of the gamist concerns. If it was the entirety of the appeal, they would be playing wargames, not RPGs.

Now I'm thinking about it, maybe fairness and bias are secondary concerns. Expertise (or, rather, complete lack of one) is more important. Let's say I'm running a game where PCs are officers in the orc resistance, defending from the invading armies of the Iron Kingdom. They come up with a plan...