D&D General A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

[Oofta]

In my campaign world, my wife has been adventuring in it for a long, long time. Nothing major changes that can't be explained by historical events. Meanwhile my current group is brand new because we've moved. Does it really matter that a specific city is in a specific mountain valley next to Silver Lake? Probably not. But it matters to me, if a friend of ours from years ago looked us up they would theoretically recognize many of the place names and locations. They may even hear about some of their exploits from over a century ago. So I'm not going to reveal a hidden valley where [insert species du jour] live because if I did that I'd have dozens of races accumulated over decades of "just one more can't hurt!".

But ... it looks like we're back to "My preference is" vs "My preference is"? Nothing wrong with that of course, but after more than 200 pages haven't we already established that we just want different things and have different styles? Do whatever works best for you and yours. For me? I establish and maintain the large scale lore because I've been doing it for a long, long time.

 

[pemerton]

For some, "facilitate enjoyment" carries an implied expectation to also provide that enjoyment (as in, be the lead entertainer and-or storyteller), rather than simply providing a space and situation (as in, the setting and its backstory) in which people can find or provide their own enjoyment.

Well, not far upthread I linked to a thread I started last year, about what "story now" GMing looks like. That thread discusses in some detail what facilitation means in the "story now" context: at it's core, it means "setting the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns, by presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs.

You participated quite extensively in that thread, so presumably have some familiarity with this understanding of "facilitation".

 

[Lanefan]

Well, not far upthread I linked to a thread I started last year, about what "story now" GMing looks like. That thread discusses in some detail what facilitation means in the "story now" context: at it's core, it means "setting the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns, by presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs.

Which isn't all that far off what I just said I prefer.

You participated quite extensively in that thread, so presumably have some familiarity with this understanding of "facilitation".

Most of the non-game instances where I've encountered the word (and-or the position of) "facilitator" it has been used as a politically-correct euphemism for "chairperson" or "president" or "organizer/leader" or just plain old "boss"; i.e. the person who runs everything and who is also the 'face' or representative of the group/organization/club/etc. in question.

This is relevant because in these situations the general membership IME look to the facilitator to provide solutions or answers to whatever issues or questions may arise - in other words, they dump the work into the facilitator's lap. In an RPG this maps to players expecting the GM (as "facilitator") to provide the entertainment that they largely sit there and consume; and I think we might actually agree that this isn't what we want from our RPGing even if we vastly disagree on how not to get there.

 

[zakael19]

Which isn't all that far off what I just said I prefer.

Most of the non-game instances where I've encountered the word (and-or the position of) "facilitator" it has been used as a politically-correct euphemism for "chairperson" or "president" or "organizer/leader" or just plain old "boss"; i.e. the person who runs everything and who is also the 'face' or representative of the group/organization/club/etc. in question.

This is relevant because in these situations the general membership IME look to the facilitator to provide solutions or answers to whatever issues or questions may arise - in other words, they dump the work into the facilitator's lap. In an RPG this maps to players expecting the GM (as "facilitator") to provide the entertainment that they largely sit there and consume; and I think we might actually agree that this isn't what we want from our RPGing even if we vastly disagree on how not to get there.

Whereas I've always understood and seen facilitator in the context of "Facilitate a discussion/meeting" where they're in place to ensure an agenda is followed, objectives or discussion points are met, the ground rules are followed, and people get to have their say without being ran over.

I absolutely consider myself a facilitator in the games I'm running these days: moving the spotlight around; calling out rules as they happen or clarifying statements to ensure we all understand the fiction/stakes; and then setting the scene as required.

 

[niklinna]

Which isn't all that far off what I just said I prefer.

Most of the non-game instances where I've encountered the word (and-or the position of) "facilitator" it has been used as a politically-correct euphemism for "chairperson" or "president" or "organizer/leader" or just plain old "boss"; i.e. the person who runs everything and who is also the 'face' or representative of the group/organization/club/etc. in question.

This is relevant because in these situations the general membership IME look to the facilitator to provide solutions or answers to whatever issues or questions may arise - in other words, they dump the work into the facilitator's lap. In an RPG this maps to players expecting the GM (as "facilitator") to provide the entertainment that they largely sit there and consume; and I think we might actually agree that this isn't what we want from our RPGing even if we vastly disagree on how not to get there.

Not my experience.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, as close as I've ever seen 'facilitator' being to 'boss' has been in the sense of 'person who gets the ball rolling and keeps the ball rolling'.

It's the boss who usually brings someone in the facilitate, not doing the facilitating themselves.

 

[pemerton]

Most of the non-game instances where I've encountered the word (and-or the position of) "facilitator" it has been used as a politically-correct euphemism for "chairperson" or "president" or "organizer/leader" or just plain old "boss"; i.e. the person who runs everything and who is also the 'face' or representative of the group/organization/club/etc. in question.

Well we don't have to try and guess the sense in which I used the term, because I explained in - in the original thread, upthread in this thread when I re-posted some of that original thread, and then in my reply to you. Here it is again:

Facilitation: it's your job to "set the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns. This means presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs. This is where your prep can be helpful. But if you need to take a 5 minute break to think up something new and appropriate, don't be afraid to tell the players that. Let them talk among themselves for a little bit while you exercise your imagination!

It's helpful, here, to know how your game's action resolution system works, because if you prompt your players to declare actions that your system can't handle, that can be a problem. It pushes play away from the player protagonism you're aiming for, and into either rules debates, or rules-free storytime.

Also, different game systems express different attitudes towards "rigidity" of prep. As a general rule, though, I suggest it can be better to be flexible with your prep - adapt your situations and your NPCs that you've worked up, in order to do the job of facilitating - rather than sticking to it rigidly and risking things becoming boring or aimless. (There's a skill in sticking to your prep and keeping things interesting and focused on the players' concerns for their PCs. The Apocalypse World rulebook is excellent, maybe essential, reading for anyone who wants to develop this skill.)

In the Apocalypse World rulebook, Vincent Baker calls the GM the MC. I think there's an obvious overlap there with my use of "facilitation". I've seen some rulebooks that render GM as "game moderator" rather than "game master" - again, I think that fits with "facilitation".

And in his wonderful Interactive Toolkit essays, Christopher Kubasik draws on European operatic tradition to call the GM the Fifth Business. Which is also a facilitating role (I'm quoting from here and here):

Let’s start with roleplaying’s GM (referee, Storyteller or whatever). This is usually the person who works out the plot, the world and everything that isn’t the players’. To a greater or lesser degree, she is above the other players in importance, depending on the group’s temperament. In a Story Entertainment, she is just another player. Distinctly different, but no more and no less than any other player. The terms GM and referee fail to convey this spirit of equality. The term Storyteller suggests that the players are passive listeners of her tale. So here’s another term for this participant – one that invokes the spirit of Story Entertainments – Fifth Business.

Fifth Business is a term that originates from European opera companies. A character from Robertson Davies’ novel Fifth Business describes the term this way:

You cannot make a plot work without another man, and he is usually a baritone, and he is called in the profession Fifth Business. You must have a Fifth Business because he is the one who knows the secret of the hero’s birth, or comes to the assistance of the heroine when she thinks all is lost, or keeps the hermitess in her cell, or may even be the cause of somebody’s death, if that is part of the plot. The prima donna and the tenor, the contralto and the basso, get all the best music and do all the spectacular things, but you cannot manage the plot without the Fifth Business!​

This certainly sounds a lot like a GM, but it also makes it clear that he’s part of the show, not the show itself.

Let’s call the players the Leads. They’re not players in the GM’s game. They’re participants in a story. The Fifth Business has a lot more work to do than do the Leads, changing costumes and shaping the story while it’s in progress. But the Leads are equal to the Fifth Business. The Leads must react to the characters, incidents and information that the Fifth Business offers, just as players must react to what the GM offers in a roleplaying game. But the Fifth Business must always be on his toes and react to what the Leads offer. . . .

Like a gamemaster, you, as Fifth Business, play the roles of everyone but the Lead characters. Like a gamemaster, you prepare notes ahead of time.

Unlike a gamemaster, you are not the master of the game. You are on equal footing with the Leads. Everyone is there to make a story that night, and you’re just one of the gang.

Also unlike a gamemaster, you does not come up with “adventures.”‘ You don’t arrive with a scenario to “run” because the Leads have created goals for their characters. What you do is provide opportunities for the Lead characters to achieve those Goals and obstacles to prevent the attainment of those goals. Of course, as discussed last issue, the other members of the group will help you in creating opportunities and obstacles.​

It's not coincidence that Kubasik's description of the job of the Fifth Business overlaps to a high degree with my advice to the new "story now" GM - I read what he wrote before I wrote what I posted!

 

[pemerton]

Well, not far upthread I linked to a thread I started last year, about what "story now" GMing looks like. That thread discusses in some detail what facilitation means in the "story now" context: at it's core, it means "setting the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns, by presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs.

Which isn't all that far off what I just said I prefer.

For some, "facilitate enjoyment" carries an implied expectation to also provide that enjoyment (as in, be the lead entertainer and-or storyteller), rather than simply providing a space and situation (as in, the setting and its backstory) in which people can find or provide their own enjoyment.

Personally, I lean greatly toward the latter option here.

Here are two approaches to GMing (not the only two possible):

* "Setting the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns, by presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs;

* Providing a space and situation (as in, the setting and its backstory) in which people can find or provide their own enjoyment.​

Perhaps the first could be construed as a special case of the second. The second certainly encompasses possibilities that are very different from the first, though.

The first emphases situations and their relationship to player-authored PC concerns. This is the essence of the "conflict" that @Manbearcat posted about upthread. It is the essence of the players brining the protagonism, which as I have said is core to "story now" RPGing.

The second leaves it completely open how setting and backstory (a) relate to situation, and (b) relate to player-authored concerns. The second is quite consistent with a very wide range of RPGing, much of which will not be "story now".

So @Lanefan, I think your preference is actually quite a way off the "story now" approach. Which also came through in last year's thread.

 

[Aldarc]

Which isn't all that far off what I just said I prefer.

Most of the non-game instances where I've encountered the word (and-or the position of) "facilitator" it has been used as a politically-correct euphemism for "chairperson" or "president" or "organizer/leader" or just plain old "boss"; i.e. the person who runs everything and who is also the 'face' or representative of the group/organization/club/etc. in question.

This is relevant because in these situations the general membership IME look to the facilitator to provide solutions or answers to whatever issues or questions may arise - in other words, they dump the work into the facilitator's lap. In an RPG this maps to players expecting the GM (as "facilitator") to provide the entertainment that they largely sit there and consume; and I think we might actually agree that this isn't what we want from our RPGing even if we vastly disagree on how not to get there.

Most of the non-game instances where you would encounter the word "dungeon master" are likely starkly different than how it is used in Dungeons & Dragons, and yet you seem to get along just fine with that term without conflating their meanings.

 

[Lanefan]

Most of the non-game instances where you would encounter the word "dungeon master" are likely starkly different than how it is used in Dungeons & Dragons, and yet you seem to get along just fine with that term without conflating their meanings.

Who says I'm not conflating the meanings?