Advice for new "story now" GMs

[Lanefan]

All that said, characters can and do have plans for their futures.

And yet it seems the GM can't have plans for the setting's future (e.g. "no matter where the PCs are at the time, Mt Eruptacano is going to blow on July 7th this year"), leaving it to the whims of fate and player decision whether the PCs happen to be anywhere near it at the time. If they are, it becomes a setting element they have to deal with; if they're not and come back later, they don't find the town they expected to be there but instead find a half-burned ash-covered mess. And if they're never in a position to notice anything other than a few particularly red-sky sunsets for a few days in July then it becomes a redundant (in their eyes) event.

But as in real life, you don't know that you're actually gonna get it, you have to take active steps now toward achieving that goal. But neither GM nor players have any predetermined outcomes planned in advance—or if they do in practice, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Outcomes for the characters, perhaps, and that's fine. What I simply don't grok (and maybe never will) is what seems like system-level opposition to pre-planned setting events that will happen anyway* and that may or may not directly or indirectly affect the PCs depending where they happen to be at the time. Or on a broader scale, the opposition to reminders that there's a bigger world out there beyond just what the PCs experience in the moment, and sometimes that bigger world comes knocking.

* - unless the PCs somehow are able to - and want to - intervene. Unlikely they can stop the eruption of a volcano even if they get advance warning of it, but they might be able to stop the overthrow of a kingdom which will otherwise happen next November.

 

[niklinna]

And yet it seems the GM can't have plans for the setting's future (e.g. "no matter where the PCs are at the time, Mt Eruptacano is going to blow on July 7th this year"), leaving it to the whims of fate and player decision whether the PCs happen to be anywhere near it at the time. If they are, it becomes a setting element they have to deal with; if they're not and come back later, they don't find the town they expected to be there but instead find a half-burned ash-covered mess. And if they're never in a position to notice anything other than a few particularly red-sky sunsets for a few days in July then it becomes a redundant (in their eyes) event.

Outcomes for the characters, perhaps, and that's fine. What I simply don't grok (and maybe never will) is what seems like system-level opposition to pre-planned setting events that will happen anyway* and that may or may not directly or indirectly affect the PCs depending where they happen to be at the time. Or on a broader scale, the opposition to reminders that there's a bigger world out there beyond just what the PCs experience in the moment, and sometimes that bigger world comes knocking.

* - unless the PCs somehow are able to - and want to - intervene. Unlikely they can stop the eruption of a volcano even if they get advance warning of it, but they might be able to stop the overthrow of a kingdom which will otherwise happen next November.

Well here is really the thing the system is opposed to, in story now play: If Mt Eruptacano is going to blow on a given date, and the PCs/players know nothing about it. It's totally legit to present signs of a future threat to the PCs, because those signs are now. But story now puts the emphasis on creating the fiction mostly if not entirely through play with the whole group, and much less so apart from the players. The system is really strongly saying, "Why bother making up a bunch of stuff the PCs/players might never see? Create it as needed instead, particularly as it relates to the PCs/players dramatic interests." It's a matter of style and preference, but it's baked into the system in order to enable and reinforce that style & preference.

It's absolutely possible in story now play for the PCs to go to a town and find it a half-burned ash-covered mess, but not because it's been pre-scripted and not because that's just where they happen to be passing through. It would be—in order to suit the play style and preference—because the outcome of some move (dice roll or opportunity) left an opening for that to be a dramatic twist, say the PCs are journeying to said town specifically to locate an ally or enemy or MacGuffin there, or that town is on the only route to where they are going for the aforementioned reasons.

There are people who enjoy that play style. Story now systems serve that play style, and serve it quite well.

 

[chaochou]

Given as painting that castle pink (along with some other similar shenanigans) got my character feebleminded by its owner (later fixed) then exiled from that realm on pain of death if she returns, I'd say the stakes turned out to be considerably higher than zero.

The stakes at the time were zero.

The fact in your playstyle the GM can restrospectively impose stakes without any input from you the player simply makes it agency free, as well as boring.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You better believe that when I get my +5 Bow of Legolas or whoever (so quick, much arrow, very sharpness) that there will HECK TO PAY.

You ruthless bastard you!

 

[loverdrive]

I kinda think it would be really great if we kept this thread from turning into yet another debate about validity and possibilty of Story Now

 

[Lanefan]

The stakes at the time were zero.

The fact in your playstyle the GM can restrospectively impose stakes without any input from you the player simply makes it agency free, as well as boring.

In this case it wasn't even the GM.

The castle (and associated small town) belonged to another PC; she's the one who cast the feeblemind, and she and some NPCs in a council later sentenced me to exile.

 

[Lanefan]

Well here is really the thing the system is opposed to, in story now play: If Mt Eruptacano is going to blow on a given date, and the PCs/players know nothing about it. It's totally legit to present signs of a future threat to the PCs, because those signs are now. But story now puts the emphasis on creating the fiction mostly if not entirely through play with the whole group, and much less so apart from the players. But the system is really strongly saying, "Why bother making up a bunch of stuff the PCs/players might never see? Create it as needed instead, particularly as it relates to the PCs/players dramatic interests."

I guess my answer to the bolded is "Because they might see it, and there's no way of knowing whether or not they will until that in-game date arrives and the PCs' location is known relative to where the event takes place".

It's a matter of style and preference, but it's baked into the system in order to enable and reinforce that style & preference.

Sure, I kinda get this rationale but to me it really seems to take away the GM's ability to, in effect, play the setting itself as an NPC with its own agenda.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not crazies, but I do think that in comaprison to the overall hobby's player base the number of proactive enthused drama-first players is pretty small.

I strongly doubt anyone has sufficient data to make these sorts of statements.

Ah, right there is a difference - when I talk of high risk-high reward I'm looking at it from the character's viewpoint. Probably should have made that clear.

Seems to me like a lot of what I hear being said about sim doesn't sound at all like that, but more like there can be a lot of low stakes tourism.

Hopefully the excitement provided by the high risk part and, if successful, the in-character high reward part is rewarding enough for the player.

Maybe, but this is where our techniques differ, I am not hoping. The player has these knobs at hand.

I'm not going to disagree. There's times - and they happen in any game or sport even beyond RPGs - when the action lags for a bit; and that's fine. The trick is to not let those "lag" moments become the default for play; and I've seen GMs who are good at preventing this and have also seen GMs who are not. (and I'll freely admit that I may sometimes be in the latter camp; by no means does every session go perfectly)

And IMO it - plus exploration, which was also very much front and centre in the original model - still works very well as the underlying chassis on which to build.

Certainly nobody doubts that it can work well.

To me that sounds more like a recipe for constant intense stress - both on the character and the player - than a recipe for excitement; and for those (many!) of us who play the game to relax and laugh it somehow seems a counterproductive approach.

Though I get it that those who like it like it a lot, in its absoluteness the bolded seems a somewhat wobbly claim.

Well, after playing both ways a lot, I think your 'sounds more like' misses the mark. But I've been running these sorts of games for more than 10 years and I have yet to see someone walk or have a bad time due that factor. People really like narrativist play a lot!

And it's just game play, which brings up some advice, don't sweat things too much. Overthinking or being too worried about what is going on? It's a game! Play is joyful and not serious. Drive your character like a stolen car and have fun! If you are the GM and you are in doubt, RAMP UP THE CRAZY!!!!!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And yet it seems the GM can't have plans for the setting's future (e.g. "no matter where the PCs are at the time, Mt Eruptacano is going to blow on July 7th this year"), leaving it to the whims of fate and player decision whether the PCs happen to be anywhere near it at the time. If they are, it becomes a setting element they have to deal with; if they're not and come back later, they don't find the town they expected to be there but instead find a half-burned ash-covered mess. And if they're never in a position to notice anything other than a few particularly red-sky sunsets for a few days in July then it becomes a redundant (in their eyes) event.

Outcomes for the characters, perhaps, and that's fine. What I simply don't grok (and maybe never will) is what seems like system-level opposition to pre-planned setting events that will happen anyway* and that may or may not directly or indirectly affect the PCs depending where they happen to be at the time. Or on a broader scale, the opposition to reminders that there's a bigger world out there beyond just what the PCs experience in the moment, and sometimes that bigger world comes knocking.

* - unless the PCs somehow are able to - and want to - intervene. Unlikely they can stop the eruption of a volcano even if they get advance warning of it, but they might be able to stop the overthrow of a kingdom which will otherwise happen next November.

There's not a single universal way to do this. In a FitD based game it's a clock. In AW it's a front, though clocks have become more common as a way to decide the pacing. Either way it's quite feasible and works fine. In DW the main reason for this technique is to give the GM a way to have the world do its own stuff. Other games have other ways, or maybe don't need this so much.

 

[Lanefan]

And it's just game play, which brings up some advice, don't sweat things too much. Overthinking or being too worried about what is going on? It's a game! Play is joyful and not serious. Drive your character like a stolen car and have fun! If you are the GM and you are in doubt, RAMP UP THE CRAZY!!!!!

I'd like to stamp the bolded bit on the top of a great many character sheets I've seen over the years...