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

[Numidius]

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

Formalized thru rolls only when the two sides at the table do not agree anymore on what is established via narrative. Narrative enforced by slots spent/marked on the char sheet (by players; the Gm uses fiat until asked to roll, but Gm resources are limited to the actual setting, and once spent them cannot be used again to force the fiction. Eg: since the trolls have already been used by Gm and dealt with by the ranger, now they cannot be present in the siege as troops of the invading army)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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).

Who or what regulates when that transition happens? Is it just "keep generating the story arc until everyone has taken a pass"?

 

[Numidius]

Who or what regulates when that transition happens? Is it just "keep generating the story arc until everyone has taken a pass"?

Kind of. The point is you don't generate freely, but competitively try to arrive to the point of transition with the story in your favor, Pc spending background resources, Gm using backstory/setting and spending uses of Force.
A point is reached where resources are depleted, or Gm/Pc is asked to roll: description follows and that is actually the transition.

 

[Numidius]

Not dissimilar to a Skill challenge to determine the ante of the adventure. Backstory challenge? But if it is Gm driven, like in my first example of Town under siege, the Pc spend background slots and Gm rolls. So the inverse of an usual SC.

Edit: Background Challenge sounds better?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, so how about this:

1. The GM is allotted a fixed number of 'resources', say one per PC (could be 2, or maybe he can buy more, etc.).
2. The GM proposes a narrative element, using a resource (IE "a tribe of orcs is on the warpath").
3. The players can either propose their own narrative element which is at stake (IE "our home town of Dinford is in the path of the orcs") or
4. The players can dispute the GMs narrative element, staking one in opposition (IE "Fort Durant, my family's holding, stands in the path of the orcs."). The GM rolls to see if the orcs overcome it, with the players describing failure and the GM describing the consequences of success.
5. Either side can accept failure/success, or stake another resource (IE the GM succeeds, Fort Durant cannot hold back the orcs. Another player says "I ask my relatives, the Black Iron Dwarf Clan to march to the castle's aid.") This could be accepted by the GM, or he could make a check, expending another resource to put a spy in place, etc.
6. At any point, once both sides have accepted, then play can proceed from that point.

Any further elaboration required?

 

[Numidius]

OK, so how about this:

1. The GM is allotted a fixed number of 'resources', say one per PC (could be 2, or maybe he can buy more, etc.).
2. The GM proposes a narrative element, using a resource (IE "a tribe of orcs is on the warpath").
3. The players can either propose their own narrative element which is at stake (IE "our home town of Dinford is in the path of the orcs") or
4. The players can dispute the GMs narrative element, staking one in opposition (IE "Fort Durant, my family's holding, stands in the path of the orcs."). The GM rolls to see if the orcs overcome it, with the players describing failure and the GM describing the consequences of success.
5. Either side can accept failure/success, or stake another resource (IE the GM succeeds, Fort Durant cannot hold back the orcs. Another player says "I ask my relatives, the Black Iron Dwarf Clan to march to the castle's aid.") This could be accepted by the GM, or he could make a check, expending another resource to put a spy in place, etc.
6. At any point, once both sides have accepted, then play can proceed from that point.

Any further elaboration required?

Yes, that's basically it.
If you say just Elements, sounds more like worldbuilding, which is also cool. With Stakes in play tho, sounds more like a proper story arc framing (IMO of course, feel free to correct me).
So, given an established setting with some Elements (under Gm control, like orcs army, trolls, evil gods, warring kingdoms etc) and given Pc with other elements (background stuff, relationships, affiliations like thieves/wizards guilds, base town, family holdings , patrons or gods), the Gm puts at risk something that the players cherish, instilling new direction in the events, to the detriment of the characters.

If players like that framing, ok, that's the starting point; if they don't, and want to mitigate, or to completely prevent it, then the negotiation/confrontation phase begins.
So we have something (big) at Stake, like the siege for example, and individual/collective attempts by Pcs to not let that happen by stating Goals (like in Conflict resolution). Once someone rolls than the goal either succeds or fail. Like you say, if some other PC wants to state another and subsequent goal, the confrontation continues.
Sorry if I am verbose and repeat myself

One more thing: say the Party is a bunch of selfish characters, They could say ok to the siege and state goals about themselves fleeing away from town and go adventuring on their own. at this point if, I was the Gm, I'd tell'em to frame a scene or story arc for me to run for them, and then I would start another Negotiating phase, putting obstacles on their path.

Tomorrow I'll post something on the mechanical bits I have in mind for this. I'm still clarifying it in my mind.

 

[pemerton]

This is just a brief interruption to note that this thread is now #2 on hottest threads, behind Q&A with Gary Gygax.

Well done all, and carry on!

 

[Numidius]

"Pillars & Plots"

Story arc Negotiation method
(Sort of add-on for D&D, inspired by Trollbabe rpg)

Gm stats are geographical: Dungeon, Town, Wilderness.
Pc/Party stats are situational: Combat, Social, Exploration.

General rule: Who rolled dice narrates failures; the other side narrates successes.
Specific rule: Gm has a number of advantage dice/reroll attempts, equal to the number of Pcs at the table.

Gm-driven story arc:

Gm introduces a new plot twist that puts at stake, in danger, changes drastically, a fictional assett of the Pc/Party, a valuable one, something they will probably fight for.
Players can accept the twist and start playing from there, or start the negotiation phase using their Pc roles in the setting (race/class/fictional influence) to explain how they could have prevented the twist from happening, or at least to mitigate its effects.
Gm can accept that, or, using force, introduce an anavoidable obstacle for the Pc/Party in the form of an element/npc/faction/monster of the setting, that impeded them from having a say.
Pc/Party are now told how they have been too busy to see the plot twist coming, but can spend a background resource, normally a relationship, or an affiliation, to act instead of them and in their favour, towards the (as above stated) goal of mitigating the plot twist.
Now the Gm has to roll dice if s/he wants to negate the Pc/Party helping Ally goal (and move forward to win the overall plot twist stakes). A brief clarification of the Npcs involved ensues, then

Gm rolls related stat: if Successful, Player narrates how the relation/faction/ally failed in the attempt and how the Gm-opposotion "wins" the conflict (thus preventing the allied Npc to die, for example). If Failure, Gm narrates how own opposition is overcome. Then Gm can use one advantage die/reroll to try again, after describing a new element of setting like a use of force***... Re-rolls... Repeat.

***Use of force: Violence, Mind control, Environmental obstacle, Natural disaster, Unexpected enemy, Evil gods, and so on.

(To be continued... Player-driven story arc following, plus how to generate stats for the negotiation)

 

[Numidius]

"P&P" part II

Notes on Gm-driven 'plot negotium':
every Player is entitled to ask verification thru Pc role, and, if 'forced' by Gm opposition, to use his/her background slot in order to demand Gm to roll.
That's why the Gm has a number of rerolls equal to number of Pcs at the table. A Player may waive this opportunity and just help another Pc in an ongoing conflict vs Gm, declaring how her pc or BG relation intervene, so giving a Dis-advantage die to the Gm roll.
When a Gm wins a conflict, gains an advantage die for the next one.
Note that neither side can actually negate, or veto, declarations of the other; the outcomes are at stake, and conflicts are resolved to see which side has the last word on where and when actual normal roleplay begins in the new 'plot twist' storyline.
Another point of the Plot Negotium is in gaining information, backstory, displayed in advance by the Gm as clarifications firstly and as real opposition secondly , if the Players feel like that and push to conflict rolls.
At first level a Pc has: Role (race, class, fluff) to ask/propose clarification to the Gm, and one Background 'slot' (fluff, previous job, a current affiliation or npc relationship) to use as conflct leverage against Gm's opposition and go to rolling dice.

Next: Stats and die rolls

Edit: further notes: the opposition that Gm puts in place as opponents in conflict rolls, is at risk: first failed roll means it is simply being overcome; second means wounded, being depleted, socially circumvented (depending on context); third failure means it KOed AND narration of KO is made by the other side (in this case the opposing Player). If Gm does not like the latter narration by player, may simply declare that the opposition is dead, or else as final, as appropried.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

I'm honestly surprised that you haven't by this point. I think that there is a lot about the system and gameplay that you would like considering some of your game preferences.