All i Really Care About is Interesting Choices

[loverdrive]

See, this is where I get into trouble for asking: "So why do these Story Now games even have GMs" Wouldn't they work just as well or even better if they didn't have this asymmetrical relationship? Couldn't a combination of random tables and participant input do the job?"

And before anyone get angry (again) for me asking, note that I am NOT asking to be snarky or pejorative. I am totally serious. What does the GM add to this style of play that requires that role be filled, that isn't just a legacy issue? Surely if Bob's character is talking to an NPC, Mary can take the role of the NPCs since in the end the dice are going to decide what the result of the conversation is going to be?

Well, yeah, GM can be ditched, and it isn't uncommon to not have one.

Having one, though, can be beneficial, as playing a main character is kinda big deal that requires a lot of effort and attention -- they're on screen for long periods of time, after all, and need to be rock solid. So, person who doesn't play a main character, is free to allocate their attention and effort into things other than main characters -- creating conflicts, keeping track of off-screen stuff, playing colourful NPCs, all that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, this is where I get into trouble for asking: "So why do these Story Now games even have GMs" Wouldn't they work just as well or even better if they didn't have this asymmetrical relationship? Couldn't a combination of random tables and participant input do the job?"

And before anyone get angry (again) for me asking, note that I am NOT asking to be snarky or pejorative. I am totally serious. What does the GM add to this style of play that requires that role be filled, that isn't just a legacy issue? Surely if Bob's character is talking to an NPC, Mary can take the role of the NPCs since in the end the dice are going to decide what the result of the conversation is going to be?

Czege Principle, pure and simple. There's no drama inherent in a situation where a participant poses a problem and then provides the solution. There needs to be a divide between these two functions. Now, there are games where players take turns posing problems, and that works fine too. However, if you look at games like Dungeon World, the GM also has a role as 'planner'. While they are NOT constructing elaborate plots/adventures for the PCs to experience, they CAN prep and plan some stuff. This material is mostly intended to give the world a 'life' of its own. So in DW you make 'fronts', which are threatening organizations or circumstances that will change the world. PCs can address them, or not, as they choose, but they can serve as a source of GM moves and framing material. I mean, for instance, there may be certain pressures that can be put on a PC, a soft move. These could be described MANY ways fictionally, which are all addressing player supplied themes and conflicts, but if the GM has a front (lets say an orc tribe) then those pressures can have an orc-shaped framing. So the GM is definitely a creative participant in this game, but just not DIRECTING everything in a set way.

 

[loverdrive]

As of trad vs. new school. First, yeah, just like @Ovinomancer said, check out the Eastern taxonomy. What is called "mid-school" within it, encapsulates both trad and neo-trad playstyles, well, as far as I understand those two labels.

Second, yes, it is possible to collaboratively create an engaging story with the great deal of player input in, say, D&D 5E. The problem is, the way that system works is in direct conflict with, well, storytelling. If you want that, the players need to simultaneously try to overcome challenges the GM sets and strive to create a dramatic story, ramp up tensions, all that. Overcoming challenges => desire to keep things as clean as possible, creating dramatic story => desire to see characters struggle. These two are incompatible, and the game is cursed (doesn't mean it sucks or anything, check out Jaffe's presentation I've linked).

Games like Fate or AW, on the other hand, don't have such conflict. I know that my skill at solving problems doesn't influence whether I get to stay in the game or not.



To be honest, the reason I love PbtA games so much is that they allow to end up with a cool, engaging story without me, the player, taking on director stance. I can just play my character to the best of my abilities, and I can be 100% sure that they will struggle and change in a dramatic fashion anyway. I don't need to consciously worry about the storytelling, the only thing on my plate is "what my gal would try to do next?".

When I'm playing Vampire, on the other hand, I feel like I need to consciously drive my character towards the dramatic things, and if I'll just focus on my PC and stop treating her as a character in the story I'm writing, there's a decent chance the end result will be a mess.

 

[Manbearcat]

Can you articulate what you mean by "pick what you were doing"? Because if you mean "did you choose what score to go for" the answer is "kind of, it was a introductory game so we sort of just agreed on one the GM had run before." If you mean something deeper, I would need a better explanation.

But broadly: no, it did not feel especially different than most RPGs with a lot of player agency within the context of the "adventure." The real difference was the constant attempt to interpret results of "success with a cost" which at times felt forced (similar to interpreting Genysys dice).

@Ovinomancer has given you a bang-on set of answers, but I'm going to tell you what by-the-book GMing a session of Blades in the Dark looks like so you can distinguish it from other forms of GMing (and understand how what your GM was doing wasn't by-the-book). What I put in quotations will be things I (GM) say aloud. What I italicize will be my (GM) internal headspace. Hopefully, this does work:

* "Alright, what do you guys want to do tonight? Is it time to end your At War status w/ The Circle of Flame? You guys mentioned you wanted to press the Ink Rakes into running a story on x. You want me to frame an Information Gathering scene at the Duskvol Times around that? Amy, your Enemy, Casta the Bounty Hunter, is loose from Ironhook after their Clock went off during Downtime because you couldn't muster the results in your own Downtime Activities to put a stop to it; we want to look into that? You were looking at Patron; get some dirt on a higher-up and put pressure on them?"

* 1-3 result during Info Gathering phase with Survey...alrght, sure the thing they wanted to be true is true but what is some bad news that doesn't escalate things too badly because Info Gathering phase...hmmmm. "Jack, alright yeah...it was as you suspected. It was in fact Roric's (former Crows leader) that was fished out of the drink in Tangletown. Someone has violated the Tangletown non-violence truce. But it wasn't the comparatively weak Red Sashes (Tier 2) that you have no beef with. You guys are -2 Faction with The Dockers (Tier 3), right? While you're leaning against the ropes that make up the banister of the spiral stair of this flotilla...you see Nico and Luca...Dockers...and they see you and the look you exchange tells them 'they know that you know it was them'...you've had a bad run-in with these guys in the past. Tell us about it."

* Casta the Bounty Hunter, Amy's Enemy is on the loose. Master Threat Hound/Lurk archetype and Tier 2. Info Gathering sucked for these guys. Things went all bad. We have no idea about The Circle of Flame's security for this gala where The Everlife Stone of the First Age is being auctioned...we have no idea what is lurking on the ridge of that pitched roof. Engagement Roll 1-3...Desperate Position. Massive line and with bourgeoisie and someone next to the PC that knows her and is a huge threat to make her despite her disguise > Desperate : Standard Sway to annoy them socially into leaving her alone > 4/5 result success but major complication > Of course Casta was hired by The Circle of Flame as security measures against The Crew! "Amy, the noble couple are repelled by your your endless and obnoxious chatter. They haven’t made you and they’re turned back around focused hard on security checkpoint to get through the line and away from you! However, suddenly, your forged invitation (Tier 4 Asset, so Great Effect, gained pre-Score vs The Circle of Flame; Tier 3) abruptly explodes out of your hand and flitters to the ground. You pick it up and its been damaged virtually beyond repair...high caliber ammunition has obliterated it...someone shot it within the area of a Silence Vial because neither you nor anyone else heard the crack of the shot. Your well-trained eyes are drawn to the roof due to the trajectory of the shot. You see a glint of rifle sights. Casta pulls her head out from behind her sniper position on the roof's ridge. She gives you a GIT GUD SCRUB nod and winks at you before she quickly disappears behind the ridge line with the tripod and rifle. The game is afoot as she's on the prowl!

I'm starting an Alarm Clock and ticking it once; 1/4 (when it goes off Casta is going to engage you in mortal combat). That is 1 out of the 3 for your Desperate Complication. The rest of it is your nearly ruined invitation.

Your spot in the queue is coming up. You've got a mere minute before you're going to be forced to show your invitation and either ushered inside or booted. What are you doing? Definitely Desperate Position if you want to try to somehow repair this damaged forged invitation...unless you have something up your sleeve? What are you doing?"

---

This continues, on-and-on, until the session is over. Following the established fiction, following the GM principles and play agenda, following the players' leads, provoking them to action, throttling up and back my adversity (Position and Effect driven by the parameters of the fiction which includes the Score Type/Detail, the Tier of the adversary in play, their assets, the fiction to date, and "what's on the playing field") within the constraints of the intersection of the games procedures/rules/principles/fiction/and unfolding (and likely unravelling!) situation.

EDIT - In case its not clear:

* Players come up with the agenda for play.

* I frame scenes around either (a) what they've directly cued me with (their words) or (b) some nexus of what has transpired prior + the dramatic needs inherent to individual PCs or The Crew at large.

* We follow around the characters in Info Gathering phase until its sufficiently resolved to start a Score. We Loadout > we gather dice pool for Engagement Roll > I frame opening situation/obstacle of Score informed by Info Gathering + Engagement Roll result.

* We keep doing this until the Score resolves (conversation following fiction and GMing principles and rules with me introducing provocative situations/obstacles until either goal is met and Score is completed or they bail because calamity has ensued or things "got too hot") and then we do Payoff > Crime Boss > Faction > Entanglements > Downtime (where I handle my table-facing Faction/Setting Clocks which observe all of the established fiction that has happened and the principles of proper GMing so they can, at their discretion, interact with them to stop bad stuff from going off).

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, I don't think I will ever understand the appeal of that style of game, particularly from the GM's perspective. It sounds like a service position and your manager is the dice.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, I don't think I will ever understand the appeal of that style of game, particularly from the GM's perspective. It sounds like a service position and your manager is the dice.

Let’s start with manager and sub “manager” for principal constraints on authority. The principal constraints on your authority (what content you can introduce, what you are obliged to do, what you are incentivized to do) are (a) the game’s overarching agenda, (b) the player’s say (A + B is as close to your “service position” as I can get), (c) the system’s say (rules + procedures + GMing principles = your “the dice”), and (d) the fact of the incentives that it’s an extremely challenging way to GM that is fundamentally different from GMing a play experience like an RC or B/X Hexcrawl and also (e) extremely rewarding because you as the GM get to “play to find out what happens” (being surprised by the form and shape that play takes as much as the players are) and “it fundamentally works every_single_time_without fail.”


But the point of the exercise was to demonstrate the difference between the agenda of play and what principally constrained GMing looks like in this form of play vs others (including the not-by-the-book GMing of Blades that you appear yo have experienced).

Do you we feel like “mission accomplished?” You feel like you understand the difference at this point?

EDIT - And maybe you could speak to your sense of the appeal of running games the way you run games (since you draw the contrast above). I think if you speak explicitly to what that appeal is exactly, it will better demarcate “what’s in it for me (the GM)” when GMing the two different types of play.

The (d) and the (e) I outline above capture the appeal of GMing this sort of play (the specific challenge of it + being able to play to find out what happens) offers but you also have to include (f) the offloading of a certain amount of mental bandwidth and both clerical and (a particular form of) cognitive burden onto system and the table collective at large.

 

[Reynard]

(e) extremely rewarding because you as the GM get to “play to find out what happens” (being surprised by the form and shape that play takes as much as the players are) and “it fundamentally works every_single_time_without fail.”

This isn't an issue because I ALWAYS play to find out. Even if I am running an adventure I have run before, I am always surprised by the outcome because the thing that matters is what the players do, what choices they make, with random die results (a clutch critical, a terrible fumble, a failed persuasion, etc) informing those things.

I don't need or want "story game" elements because the story that emerges out of play is the one that interests me. The situation or circumstances I as GM set up (or choose in the case of a published scenario) are just a foundation on which that "story" is built -- just like (it sounds like) the constraints of the PbtA/FitD game.

The play loop of
GM: Here's the situation.
Players; Here's what we do.
{dice are rolled, maybe]
GM: Here's the new situation.
etc...

Is what I find compelling. I improv a lot, sometimes 100% (but usually more like, say, 75%, because technically I prepped the situation) so I am always, always surprised by the outcome.

EDIT TO ADD: I can't imagine how constrained list of "move" responses for me as GM would improve the experience for anyone at the table.

 

[Manbearcat]

This isn't an issue because I ALWAYS play to find out. Even if I am running an adventure I have run before, I am always surprised by the outcome because the thing that matters is what the players do, what choices they make, with random die results (a clutch critical, a terrible fumble, a failed persuasion, etc) informing those things.

I don't need or want "story game" elements because the story that emerges out of play is the one that interests me. The situation or circumstances I as GM set up (or choose in the case of a published scenario) are just a foundation on which that "story" is built -- just like (it sounds like) the constraints of the PbtA/FitD game.

The play loop of
GM: Here's the situation.
Players; Here's what we do.
{dice are rolled, maybe]
GM: Here's the new situation.
etc...

Is what I find compelling. I improv a lot, sometimes 100% (but usually more like, say, 75%, because technically I prepped the situation) so I am always, always surprised by the outcome.

EDIT TO ADD: I can't imagine how constrained list of "move" responses for me as GM would improve the experience for anyone at the table.

You don’t “play to find out” in the Dogs in the Vineyard/PBtA sense of the phrase.

That orientation to play is “there is no plot.” It’s not just about lack of outcome prescription. It’s about lack of unilateral GM-authored input prescription as the through line of the situation > decision > resolution > situation (rinse/repeat) loop that shapes play. If you have a metaplot and hidden backstory and high resolution setting that, in concert, serve as the boundary conditions for play and the constraints upon possible situations to be engaged with during play? ESPECIALLY, but not exclusively, if those situations and that setting aren’t driven by player input (typically via PC build or some kind of “ask questions and use the answers” process). That is a different form of play.

You’re not surprised about the total content and complete shape of play each and every session. Yeah, you might be surprised how the players engage with your metaplot, how they engage with your backstory, how they engage with the NPCs and locales and intrigues that you’ve invested into your setting. But that is a very different thing.

So, again, you contrasted “the appeal of that style of game (The Blades in the Dark style of play that I fleshed out above)” with (presumably) “the appeal of this other style of game (presumably yours?).”

Can you flesh out that contrast, please? Maybe draw upon what I’ve written above and/or your idea of these “story game elements” (which you appear to not like so much!) that you’re perceiving to use in that contrast?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I don't need or want "story game" elements because the story that emerges out of play is the one that interests me. The situation or circumstances I as GM set up (or choose in the case of a published scenario) are just a foundation on which that "story" is built -- just like (it sounds like) the constraints of the PbtA/FitD game.

They really aren't constraints. If that's what it sounds like to you, look at the rules for Blades in the Dark. If anything it's the lack of constraints that tends to freak people out.

I improv a lot, sometimes 100% (but usually more like, say, 75%, because technically I prepped the situation) so I am always, always surprised by the outcome.

Story now games are much, much more surprising, since you aren't just watching PCs move within a relatively narrow range of freedom. The entire narrative flow can change direction at any point. Maybe a success-with-consequence that a player rolls has you saying that a blizzard is rolling in, or that a cop shows up. Or a miss on a roll might mean an ally turns out to be a traitor. You could say that's all just improvisation, but it's far more improv, to a much greater degree, and with very different triggers.

EDIT TO ADD: I can't imagine how constrained list of "move" responses for me as GM would improve the experience for anyone at the table.

Again, I think you're forming some pretty hard opinions--and spending a decent amount of time expressing them--without really looking at the material. Older PbtA games might have really pushed the idea of a set list of GM moves, but that's basically gone in newer games. Thirsty Sword Lesbians has a list of sample GM moves, but they're just suggestions. Brindlewood Bay and The Between suggest possible consequences, not moves. The point of most of those suggestions is to help the GM with all of the improvisation they have to do.

One of my favorite consequence suggestions in Brindlewood and The Between--and one that I think illustrates how different this approach is from a traditional game's--is to split up the PCs. That's something that, in other systems, might require a flurry of rolls and back-and-forth, and could be met with the usual panic over player agency. Perception rolls, Dex saves, Willpower checks, etc. to stop the door from locking behind you, or to resist the hallucination or spell drawing you away from the others. But in horror/investigation narratives getting split up is a pretty common trope. So if a consequence is rolled, and it works in the fiction, it can just happen. And that's not based on the GM triggering the "Split up the party move." It's just one of many possible consequences.

And in Scum and Villainy, the list of suggestions is framed like this:

"GM ACTIONS
In the same way that player characters have actions they can use to get things done in the game, so do you have a set of GM actions. When you need to contribute to the story and you are unsure of what to do, look at this list of actions and pick one."

Just suggestions. Ultimately, though, it's obvious that you're opposed to this approach, and you don't want to try running one of these games. That's totally your call. Just seems like you're spending a lot of time and effort pushing back on something you don't really get, and don't really want to.

 

[Umbran]

OTOH I think when posters were mentioning dominant forms of play, they were probably not thinking of Atomic Robo!

Just to be clear - Atomic Robo isn't some experimental form of play, or deep piece about relationships or Drama. It is pretty standard action-adventure stuff. It is expecting characters to do wacky things to resolve wacky situations.