A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Numidius]

So, it does not seem entirely unreasonable that you could measure the success of an "adventure" like a SC, but using the success or failure of Challenges, and the success of a campaign using the success or failure of "adventures", just sort of abstractly scaling up from one level to the next.

The question then being what does a failed adventure look like? How do you significantly change the fiction on the campaign scale without leading to a campaign level death spiral? Further, how does this affect the framing of scenes in a more player driven game style, and how does it affect the development of backstory in a more DM drive game style?

Re: Adventure, I see Stakes, something that is wanted by the Party and a couple of Factions/Npcs: a situation that fosters a series of small Conflicts having an immediate Goal, albeit small, that gets Players closer to control the Stake, and, in the process, producing fiction regulated by rules on the Right to describe outcomes.

(Sounds like Edward's Trollbabe, again, I know, that's my filter of analisys)

Re: Gm producing Backstory: I mean, why not, but I would focus on the introduction of new Content by the Gm*: s/he also has to have some Stats to roll if Players do not agree: like Dungeon, Town, Wilderness, for general arenas of play,
or about the Use of Force: enforced in-fiction by Npcs or bigger Factions or anything: stats would be like Use of Violence, Mind Control, Environmental Obstacles, when directly against the Party to limit their freedom of movement, or to generate players driven scene framing.

(It's been a while that I'm thinking on these lines......)

 

[pemerton]

"Let five years pass" ... this is something that scares trad Gms IME.

When resuming warhammer 2e last year, I proposed to let some time pass: new careers for older Pcs, new Npcs and situations to start with, even if continuing the same overall storyline-big plot behind the scenes... instead the game resumed exactly were we left, in the very same moment.
No scene framing, so it took two whole sessions to get to the place we all agreed we had to start play with... as per past clues (an old elven ship wrecked on the coast and hidden by debris)

Numidius, you seem to have some frustrating play experiences!

One thing I'm curious about is whether (i) you're an outlier, or (ii) others do this too but enjoy it, or (iii) others have similar frustrations.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic has a Doom Pool that extends over Scenes and resets at the beginning of each Act. What countws as an Act is flexible: the system is odd in its core presenation (MHRP) because it's obviously "story now" but assumes a pre-estalished story arc (an Event, in the terminology of the game, like Civil War or Fall of the Mutants).

In my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game I've relied on the internal logic of play to determine breaks between Acts. The first Act ended when one of the PCs escaped the dungeon with the dark elves' gold while the other PCs were still trapped in the bottom levels. The next Act began with those trapped PCs having made their way to the surface and trudged back to civilisation, while the other PC was once again traipsing north having spent down his bag of gold. The second Act evolved into an attempt to rescue villagers from reavers and giants, and when that had been achieved I decided that that Act was finished. The third Act began with the PCs heading up into the high places of the north to try and stop the Ragnarok. It's still ongoing, but will be the final Act of the campaign.

The idea that a GM would, or would noeed to, stipoulate that a particular goal is unattainable seems on its face a bit railroad-y. In the orcs-eating-children example, if the PCs are defeatd by the orcs but subsequently end up finding a Ring of Wishes, what (in the standard fiction of a typical D&D game) precludes them wishing that the children had never been captured and eaten? Or there is @AbdulAlhazred's example of a bargain with Death itself.

This is why I tend to think of the idea of an outcome or goal that is/isn't possible having no meaning outside the context of actual play.

In terms of the 'reversibility' of things, the players have more power here than the GM in most games. While the PCs could, in principle, achieve some kind of 'wish' or something which would 'uneat' the children, the GM is pretty much constrained to not eat them later if they were once rescued (I guess you could imagine a game with a tone of hopeless inevitability in which the children are simply eaten by wolves a week later, but that aside).

Of course, later, the players could once again bring the children's fate into play and change their fate, perhaps giving them back to the God of the Dead because of some other consideration, etc. That would be only an OFFER by the GM however, and probably should be calculated to be not too forced (though again, tone matters here).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, it does not seem entirely unreasonable that you could measure the success of an "adventure" like a SC, but using the success or failure of Challenges, and the success of a campaign using the success or failure of "adventures", just sort of abstractly scaling up from one level to the next.

The question then being what does a failed adventure look like? How do you significantly change the fiction on the campaign scale without leading to a campaign level death spiral? Further, how does this affect the framing of scenes in a more player driven game style, and how does it affect the development of backstory in a more DM drive game style?

Right, this kind of procedure was discussed early on in 4e's life. I recall doing a few experiments with it, but never was entirely satisfied with the results. Now, with HoML, which has ONLY challenge-like mechanics, you could create a hierarchy, each encounter builds a success/failure at the 'adventure' level, and success/failure at that level could feed into 'story arc' or 'campaign' level success/failure tallies.

All the questions you ask are quite germane. The other question is how this works in regards to things like changes of direction in the campaign, contrary or conflicting goals between different players (IE there may not be a party-wide definition of success at all levels). 4e SCs have trouble with changes in direction too. Sometimes it is best to simply decide that the SC has ended in an indeterminate way (IE the players abandoned it, or the conditions changed so much that the win/loss tally no longer makes any narrative sense, etc.).

Maybe a more robust concept would be to structure these things as 'quests' instead of 'challenges'. They could still use the tally mechanism, but they could be more personal and flexible, with many ongoing at one time, potentially, and perhaps failures and successes are more conditional. This might look a bit more like a 'clock' than an SC? I'm not sure...

 

[Numidius]

Numidius, you seem to have some frustrating play experiences!

One thing I'm curious about is whether (i) you're an outlier, or (ii) others do this too but enjoy it, or (iii) others have similar frustrations.

Funny thing is, we tried some videogames recently and we had the same problem! The latest version of Fist of the Northstar: after the combat tutorial we stuck at the very beginning of game, outside the walls of a town, we could not find a way in. Lots of npc repeating the same lines when talked to, no clue how to unlock the first scene.
Latest Conan: in the first scene, ruins in a desert: our pc literally died by thirst after an hour of going around looking for anything to interact... "My kingdom for a thermal bath!" I screamed in despair

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Re: Adventure, I see Stakes, something that is wanted by the Party and a couple of Factions/Npcs: a situation that fosters a series of small Conflicts having an immediate Goal, albeit small, that gets Players closer to control the Stake, and, in the process, producing fiction regulated by rules on the Right to describe outcomes.

(Sounds like Edward's Trollbabe, again, I know, that's my filter of analisys)

Re: Gm producing Backstory: I mean, why not, but I would focus on the introduction of new Content by the Gm*: s/he also has to have some Stats to roll if Players do not agree: like Dungeon, Town, Wilderness, for general arenas of play,
or about the Use of Force: enforced in-fiction by Npcs or bigger Factions or anything: stats would be like Use of Violence, Mind Control, Environmental Obstacles, when directly against the Party to limit their freedom of movement, or to generate players driven scene framing.

(It's been a while that I'm thinking on these lines......)

OK, so at the 'story arc' level then the players would describe something they want. The GM would then be obliged to describe a path to acquiring the thing which would have some 'cost' associated with it. The players could either wager those stakes, or not. Maybe there's a sort of 'refusal cost', you have to ante up even to hear what is on offer. That would create pressure, do I take this quest or wait for the next one?

 

[Numidius]

OK, so at the 'story arc' level then the players would describe something they want. The GM would then be obliged to describe a path to acquiring the thing which would have some 'cost' associated with it. The players could either wager those stakes, or not. Maybe there's a sort of 'refusal cost', you have to ante up even to hear what is on offer. That would create pressure, do I take this quest or wait for the next one?

Story arc: either the Players are proactive with their Goals, or the Gm is ready to go.
As Gm I don't like to waste prep, but as a Player I like to have a say in the direction the Story goes.
Also IME at the Table negotiations before play are very difficult with most players/Gms so I'd have them regulated in some way and moreover played as actual game, producing fiction on a larger scale.

Table/Gm: chooses Setting, and then everyone highlights specific locations of interest in it.
Players make Pcs and write down Relations, Factions, Gods, related to their race and class(es) and declare base location(s).
Gm: introduces content: "The quiescent tribes of orcs are reunited under a powerful shaman. They invade the countryside e put your town under siege".
Players may Agree and start playing from there, or ask the Gm to Roll and see what happens, or Negate the declaration/outcomes:
Pc half-orc ranger: "Not so fast. My duty is to patrol borders 'tween orcs mountains and humanity's cultivated plains. I should be able to prevent it, or at least know in advance rumours about it".
Gm can agree and start playing from there, or Negate by the Use of Force on Player, using an Environmental Obstacle (a drought forced humans to bring herds uphill in orcish territory, You were too busy), or Violence (Trolls are fleeing from fires in the forest, causing havoc in farms), or Mind Control (the shaman has cursed your orc half, filling your dreams with fear, you spent your days in town, recently).
Pc Agrees, Negates, or asks Gm to Roll on his Wilderness Stat. Pc decides to Negate the bad outcome (he can't outright negate the use of force by Gm but can find a way out), putting forward the Relationship with an orc sister (that actually occupies a Slot on the char sheet) who informs the Pc about the evil shaman.
And so on... Note that in this phase of Confrontation, the Pc does not roll dice, in case is the Gm who rolls.

The point is: every time one Negates a declaration/outcome, Pc "spends a resource" marking that precise feature used to Negate which occupies a Slot on the Sheet: as per above the Pc has already marked the Class Slot (Ranger), and one Relationship slot.

When Confrontation is over, usual play starts from there: now the Pc rolls dice when Conflicts arise.

Hope it makes sense

 

[Numidius]

The point of having only one side rolling, is that they can re-roll failures by spending more resources, in order to win the stakes/reach their goal.
In the above example, would be the Town under Siege by the Gm.

 

[Numidius]

Trying to give it a bit of sistematization:
The usual background fluff on the Pc sheet is organized in Slots. These slots are used by Players to counter the framing of quests, situations, new content introduction, general adversity, imposed by the Gm, which compels, puts pressure on, involves, the above background fluff with stuff available in the setting.
In this phase of Negotiation, of play on a larger scale than usual, the Gm uses Force to avoid rolling, countered by Players background slots.
Gm stats I think of something like the areas of the main Three Pillars, if we talk D&D, so Dungeon, Town, Wilderness.
While Pcs will have the proper pillars stats: Combat, Social, Exploration.
Gm stats focusing on types of setting, Pc ones on types of activities.

 

[Numidius]

OK, so at the 'story arc' level then the players would describe something they want. The GM would then be obliged to describe a path to acquiring the thing which would have some 'cost' associated with it. The players could either wager those stakes, or not. Maybe there's a sort of 'refusal cost', you have to ante up even to hear what is on offer. That would create pressure, do I take this quest or wait for the next one?

Let's focus on what you propose: a Player driven story arc.
Say: the Pc half-elf fighter/bard wants to marry the daughter of the high elves' King. The Gm could say: "Agreed, let's move on", or "Not so fast. First you have to phisically get to the elven kingdom, and I remind you that the mountains are infested by warring orcs lead by an evil shaman. (Sounds like Exploration stuff). Then you will discover that she is promised to a noble cousin, (and that is Social). Finally the King himself will probably ask you to prove your might and clear up an annoying megadungeon situated just under his realm (Combat)."
In any of those points, the Player may use his slots to move further (or those of someone else's in the party, if they participate), and Gm may use Force to stop him. When the negotiation phase is over, the normal play begins, and the Pc will use his own ability, feat, skill, Slots (at-will, encounter, daily, whatever).