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

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION]: in your proto-system, what resource does the GM spend to use Force?

 

[Numidius]

[MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION]: in your proto-system, what resource does the GM spend to use Force?

Before [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] quoted my post I was not thinking in a 'story arc mode', so it is evolving as we speak.

But I did the same question to myself. Basically the Gm uses Setting's local resources, so in the first negotiation, once the Trolls are used, cannot be put forward again in the same confrontation.
(Later on, during 'normal play', Trolls would be roaming the lands as per fiction established in the Negot. Phase)
But... resources in setting are virtually infinite... so... anyway, the more stuff the Gm brings in, the more fiction and situation is established before 'normal play'.
The Gm could also have finite Slots to be filed once spent...
But anyway when a Player is done with the Neg. Phase, can ask the Gm to stop where they are and Roll dice. In the following description of outcomes both Player and Gm use whatever fiction has been established to that point: places, factions, npcs etc

 

[Numidius]

[MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION]: in your proto-system, what resource does the GM spend to use Force?

And in your opinion, what resource the Gm should use?

 

[pemerton]

And in your opinion, what resource the Gm should use?

Dunno, I've never thought of establishing setting and "big picture" (to use Luke Crane's terminology) in this way before.

Fate has something a bit like this in it's setup phase, but I've never played Fate. Does it have anything useful to offer?

MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic allows the GM to set up to three Scene Distinctions for free in each action scene, and the rest have to be paid for from the Doom Pool. Maybe the GM gets three uses of Force for free, and then every further move allows the players to introduce some favourable element into the fiction also (eg the GM has trolls, but the PCs have a bolt hole among the fairy folk of the forest).

 

[darkbard]

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).

Do you see this setting creation as fundamentally different than the Dungeon World method of shared creation at the game's outset, particularly as that outlined in The Perilous Wilds?

In any event, cool stuff to be thinking about!

 

[Numidius]

Do you see this setting creation as fundamentally different than the Dungeon World method of shared creation at the game's outset, particularly as that outlined in The Perilous Wilds?

In any event, cool stuff to be thinking about!

I have not read PW. Would elaborate on that?

The difference I perceive from DW, is that I'd put in place a procedural frame to be followed as RAW. In which Gm and Players are not pulling their punches, since in any moment one can mandate the other to roll, and then another Frame dictates who narrates Success and who Failures (who rolls narrates Failures... the other Player the Success: so in the above Bard & Princess story arc Negotiation, the Gm would roll for the social stuff regarding the Princess and her promised Cousin: Gm fails and narrates that Yes The Princess now loves the Bard, but he captures her and flee into the dungeon helped by his noble house relatives --- note that The Dungeon was already in the fiction, so who narrates may incorporate anything that has been established, and of course pertinent: this can be clarified before the roll, btw, to have fair play/all on the same page)

 

[Numidius]

In any event, cool stuff to be thinking about!

Thanks

 

[Numidius]

Dunno, I've never thought of establishing setting and "big picture" (to use Luke Crane's terminology) in this way before.

Fate has something a bit like this in it's setup phase, but I've never played Fate. Does it have anything useful to offer?

MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic allows the GM to set up to three Scene Distinctions for free in each action scene, and the rest have to be paid for from the Doom Pool. Maybe the GM gets three uses of Force for free, and then every further move allows the players to introduce some favourable element into the fiction also (eg the GM has trolls, but the PCs have a bolt hole among the fairy folk of the forest).

Not so familiar with Fate, myself. I've read bits of old editions. Marvel Heroic instead yes, the Doom Pool mechanic is cool, a tool mechanically regulated for the Gm to use, preventing abuse.

Good point. Starting from what you say about the three uses of Force allowed to the Gm, I now think these might be represented by the three "Rerolls" for the Gm-facing conflicts during Neg. Phase.

So the flow of play during negotiation phase would be like the following:

Gm simply puts forward resources/stuff/npc/monster/factions (from the setting the table is playing in) to establish a starting point in play.
Pcs spend their Background Slots to Negate the effects of what the Gm wants to establish.
This back and forth goes on until the Gm is cool with the last declaration from Players, or the Players stop it, declaring a conflict: Gm has to Roll. Everything already established before the roll is canon.
Gm rolls.
If successful, Player describes the outcome (the Player, in this way, has authority on describing how his/her Pc 'loses' the conflict, and also to add positive elements of canon fiction to mitigate the loss )
If fails, Gm describes how the Goal is more far than before, and, if feels so, Uses Force to reroll: describes what happens (eg: an Environmental Obstacle in the form of.......) and rolls again.
Repeat.
In the above example, the overall story arc Stake is "Town Under Siege by Orcs", the specific Goal of the rolled conflict is "The ranger is NOT warned by his orc sister while busy with trolls & bonfires"

Now Gm has spent one Use of Force (Env. Obs.) and the Ranger some BG Slots.

The negotiaton continues if there are other players, or the game zooms in to Scene framing in a new situation: Town is under siege.
Now: does another negotiation on Scene Fr. begins? If so, resources spent are refreshed?

 

[Numidius]

Also, procedurally, if Gm started the Story arc framing, the Players should then start the Scene framing (?)

 

[darkbard]

I have not read PW. Would elaborate on that?

The difference I perceive from DW, is that I'd put in place a procedural frame to be followed as RAW. In which Gm and Players are not pulling their punches, since in any moment one can mandate the other to roll, and then another Frame dictates who narrates Success and who Failures (who rolls narrates Failures... the other Player the Success: so in the above Bard & Princess story arc Negotiation, the Gm would roll for the social stuff regarding the Princess and her promised Cousin: Gm fails and narrates that Yes The Princess now loves the Bard, but he captures her and flee into the dungeon helped by his noble house relatives --- note that The Dungeon was already in the fiction, so who narrates may incorporate anything that has been established, and of course pertinent: this can be clarified before the roll, btw, to have fair play/all on the same page)

Ah, I see: this is formalized through rolls rather than freeform narrative building. That is quite different than DW's collaborative campaign building.