Approaches to prep in RPGing - GMs, players, and what play is *about*

[hawkeyefan]

And yet in Stonetop all this is coming from Setting first. Or rather, a template of Setting...and templates of Character. We are asked to define our characters' positions in town, and a few key relationships with other PCs and with NPCs. So there is some muddiness here about what comes first. Again it's a matter of degrees, but I know I didn't start character creation by thinking about personal goals or ideals: I looked over the available playbooks and picked one first, and then it presented prompts for what my character is supposed to be concerned with, and that's all in relation to the setting. And all we have on the playbook in a single Instinct, which might come into conflict with...something. But there's no formalized other character attribute for it to come into conflict with.

In other words, I am finding it hard to be relentlessly positive about Stonetop, from the perspective of Character => Situation => Setting. But at least it means I'll be able to understand it! (And I am looking forward to it; I just wanted to point out this seeming discrepancy.)

What I think makes Stonetop work is that the town largely IS the the thing the characters care about. Each of them has an Instinct, and that will be put to the test for sure, but the town itself is the core that everything revolves around. The people of the town and its overall well-being will always be the backdrop to everything you do.

It is a bit different in that regard to some of the other games I've mentioned, but the results are similar. There's shared goals among the players and their characters, and investment in these elements. The fact that each player will contribute to the town will only enhance that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I think makes Stonetop work is that the town largely IS the the thing the characters care about. Each of them has an Instinct, and that will be put to the test for sure, but the town itself is the core that everything revolves around. The people of the town and its overall well-being will always be the backdrop to everything you do.

It is a bit different in that regard to some of the other games I've mentioned, but the results are similar. There's shared goals among the players and their characters, and investment in these elements. The fact that each player will contribute to the town will only enhance that.

Yeah, I think of it as more like the BitD crew, something all the PCs belong to that they, presumably, want to preserve and identify with. I mean, I guess you could be a traitor to Stonetop, but that would definitely say a LOT about your character!

 

[niklinna]

Ron Edwards wrote a good essay about how this works, but I don't think it's online anymore. This might work: Wayback Machine

Yep, this is reading like the design manual for Stonetop as I know it so far! (And you know I already had it downloaded but it's good you reminded me of it, and shared it for others to digest. It isn't a particularly smooth read but it's chock-full of good stuff.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, I think of it as more like the BitD crew, something all the PCs belong to that they, presumably, want to preserve and identify with. I mean, I guess you could be a traitor to Stonetop, but that would definitely say a LOT about your character!

Yeah, they're similar in that way. The one difference is that in Blades, the PCs ARE the crew. Sure, they may have cohorts and contacts who are also part of the crew, and they may even be very attached to them (or occasionally they may sacrifice them to bizarre entities in displays of cold-blooded efficiency), but it's not a certainty. There's always some level of subservience to cohorts and the like in Blades.

The relationships in Stonetop are less transactional, generally speaking. The PCs aren't really the boss in the same sense as Blades. And most NPCs aren't as likely to be as shady as those in Doskvol.

 

[pemerton]

Yep, this is reading like the design manual for Stonetop as I know it so far! (And you know I already had it downloaded but it's good you reminded me of it, and shared it for others to digest. It isn't a particularly smooth read but it's chock-full of good stuff.)

From my OP:

A lot of discussion of RPGing - especially when framed through ideas like "the dungeon" or "the adventure" - makes some assumptions about this stuff that aren't always brought to the surface.

It's often assumed that setting is primary - the place that the characters will be exploring and acting in. (In D&D and kindred systems this leads to very precise rule about searching for hidden things, opening doors, etc.) With setting taken as primary, it is then often assumed that situation will flow from setting - eg the players will have their PCs go somewhere, or open a door, or confront a NPC, and that will trigger/enliven the situation.

These assumptions then feed a further one: that setting needs to be prepared by the GM, so that (i) players have a relatively "concrete" thing to explore via their PCs, and so that (ii) the situations that are latent in it arise "fairly" for the players (ie based on how they go about exploring the setting) rather than in an arbitrary fashion, at the GM's whim.

I've neither read nor played Stonetop, but I'm going to conjecture that it does not follow this model, in several ways:

*The background information about the village, that will inform PC creation, framing and even consequence, is shared knowledge among all participants from the start;

*Thus, it's not the case that an important element of play is the players learning the setting by declaring actions that have their PCs moving about and through it;

*Thus, situation does not flow from setting in the sense of the PCs going somewhere or confronting a NPC which then triggers a latent situation.​

I would further conjecture that the most basic way of establishing situation in Stonetop is this:

*The GM considers the PCs and their relationships to the village (whether a NPC, or something like "the foodstores" or "the shrine");

*The GM thinks of a way that will put the element of the village that a PC is related to under pressure (and even better, in a way that also creates pressure for another player's character, either via dual threats or conflicting priorities);

*The GM makes the threat they've thought of very overt to the players, via some sort of framing narration;

*Play begins in earnest.​

We could summarise this as Setting (shared) => Character => Situation. Resolution of the situation will ramify back on the setting in ways that everyone knows about (no secret or offscreen consequences of the sort that are favoured in "living, breathing world" play), which prompts changes in the characters too and also more situation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From my OP:

I've neither read nor played Stonetop, but I'm going to conjecture that it does not follow this model, in several ways:

*The background information about the village, that will inform PC creation, framing and even consequence, is shared knowledge among all participants from the start;​

​

*Thus, it's not the case that an important element of play is the players learning the setting by declaring actions that have their PCs moving about and through it;​

​

*Thus, situation does not flow from setting in the sense of the PCs going somewhere or confronting a NPC which then triggers a latent situation.​

I would further conjecture that the most basic way of establishing situation in Stonetop is this:

*The GM considers the PCs and their relationships to the village (whether a NPC, or something like "the foodstores" or "the shrine");​

​

*The GM thinks of a way that will put the element of the village that a PC is related to under pressure (and even better, in a way that also creates pressure for another player's character, either via dual threats or conflicting priorities);​

​

*The GM makes the threat they've thought of very over to the players, via some sort of framing narration;​

​

*Play begins in earnest.​

We could summarise this as Setting (shared) => Character => Situation. Resolution of the situation will ramify back on the setting in ways that everyone knows about (no secret or offscreen consequences of the sort that are favoured in "living, breathing world" play), which prompts changes in the characters too and also more situation.

I would think that in many cases the character itself is considered, a situation is developed and then some supporting aspect of Stonetop or its environs are brought in or defined to stage or support the ensuing action. But, yes the GM could start with a feature of the town.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

An example in our Stonetop game is Meda, the Seeker. I drew an item as a starting arcana that's related to lightning, and the town is built around a weird stone which attracts lightning. So of course Meda unlocked the power of the Azure Hand by messing with the stone! This was all part of the character backstory, but we can imagine it happening in play. But in play something would motivate the scene, like a threat or need.

 

[chaochou]

I would further conjecture that the most basic way of establishing situation in Stonetop is this:

*The GM considers the PCs and their relationships to the village (whether a NPC, or something like "the foodstores" or "the shrine");​

​

*The GM thinks of a way that will put the element of the village that a PC is related to under pressure (and even better, in a way that also creates pressure for another player's character, either via dual threats or conflicting priorities);​

​

*The GM makes the threat they've thought of very overt to the players, via some sort of framing narration;​

​

*Play begins in earnest.​

We could summarise this as Setting (shared) => Character => Situation. Resolution of the situation will ramify back on the setting in ways that everyone knows about (no secret or offscreen consequences of the sort that are favoured in "living, breathing world" play), which prompts changes in the characters too and also more situation.

I've neither read nor played Stonetop either, but since it's built on the PbtA engine - and I've played a lot of Apocalypse World - I thought I'd chip in here to say that this process is the critical function of the 'ask questions and build on the answers' MC move.

So the point is that when then MC 'considers the PCs and their relationship to the village / hardhold' they do it by asking provocative and prompting questions:

• So, where exactly does the hardhold's fresh water come from?
• What you've got some kind of pump and filter next to the river - I mean who works that?
• So that's the only guy who knows how it works?
• Do you ever remember it breaking down?
• How does the water get from there to the hardhold?

This does two things at the table - it does exactly what you say about there being no secret setting, no hidden elements of play, which are the building blocks of railroading and illusionism.

And secondly, it makes this part of the process -
The GM makes the threat they've thought of very overt to the players
- almost automatic because we've been discussing the water supply and now there's a plume of smoke down near the river.

The questions and answers are understood by everone to be an implicit part of the framing when I announce my future badness, and we all know what the pressure is and what kind of stakes are likely to come into play.

 

[niklinna]

I've neither read nor played Stonetop either, but since it's built on the PbtA engine - and I've played a lot of Apocalypse World - I thought I'd chip in here to say that this process is the critical function of the 'ask questions and build on the answers' MC move.

So the point is that when then MC 'considers the PCs and their relationship to the village / hardhold' they do it by asking provocative and prompting questions:

• So, where exactly does the hardhold's fresh water come from?
• What you've got some kind of pump and filter next to the river - I mean who works that?
• So that's the only guy who knows how it works?
• Do you ever remember it breaking down?
• How does the water get from there to the hardhold?

This does two things at the table - it does exactly what you say about there being no secret setting, no hidden elements of play, which are the building blocks of railroading and illusionism.

And secondly, it makes this part of the process -
The GM makes the threat they've thought of very overt to the players
- almost automatic because we've been discussing the water supply and now there's a plume of smoke down near the river.

The questions and answers are understood by everone to be an implicit part of the framing when I announce my future badness, and we all know what the pressure is and what kind of stakes are likely to come into play.

See, now you've just UTTERLY RUINED all PbtA play for me because you've basically boiled it down to, "Nice restaurant you've got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, now you've just UTTERLY RUINED all PbtA play for me because you've basically boiled it down to, "Nice restaurant you've got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it."

There's actually a fairly subtle but important point there. I don't put stuff at direct risk which a player hasn't made stakes. At least not when the player has 'won' it. This is not a real clear line though, you could make a thing in play simply by ignoring an implied threat for example, but I would never fail to make that explicit.

Now, the hardhold in AW I think would be fair game, as it is preexisting and clearly meant to be at risk by the terms of the game's assumptions.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

This seems like a good description of the idea. It seems to capture the problem I've seen and had with this type of play which is that if you as a player want to play an honorable character you might not want that to be under threat from the game. That's really more a matter of taste than good/bad.

I've had a conversation about this with one of my players, they don't really like that kind of conflict in their stories and it def came up when we played Masks, and their playbook pushed them into conflict with the previous generations of their legacy. They like their characters to be uncompromising in their ideals and to have that be backed up by the tilt of the story, similarly, they don't like conflict within the group, they prefer everyone be doing their best. It's kind of interesting though, because the need to make it something that will be challenged, from a literary perspective, imposes the idea of situational compromises on the kind of story it is.

It kind of dovetails with my impression of "play your character like a stolen car" where play in Masks, which features moves that always point back to modifying the character's self-image, feels like it reminds me of certain kinds of fiction, but not others and demand a kind of movement every session. In the first of the two linked series, character drama plays a constant role where the protagonists are confronted constantly with the dramatic questions produced by their backstories, personalities, and beliefs, and they often act recklessly in response to those things which produces constant cliffhangers and status quo changes in their relationships-- but in the second linked series the characters 'turn' (in the sense of ships) more slowly, and they spend a lot of time inhabiting their status quo while the attention is on the situation itself that they find themselves in, but then their private worlds eventually do explode in particular arcs or events.

What I've noticed comparing the two, is that Supernatural's character development is a lot more reflective because the monster-of-the-week narratives introduced by the setting and premise frequently lets their internal conflicts breathe over the course of a season, it spends more time examining who the characters are, and less time changing them-- in other words, it develops the characters rather than the characters develop. They let a lot of things happen where Dean just gets to be Dean without challenging the things that make him Dean, and the monster of the week story carries the need for dramatic conflict because it's a self-contained story nested within the grander narrative. I found myself preferring Supernatural for that reason, separately I also realized that I deeply preferred its more fully realized exploration of it's setting rules as set up for things that happen.

I think it's just something that games don't tend to be designed around though, and while I seem to get that more in the higher prep, traddier games I can recognize it's more because of the things they don't do (point the consequences back to the character's sense of self immediately, like Vices and Stress in BITD or Mask's labels, which both pull your character's inner self directly into the gameplay loop) rather than what they do.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've had a conversation about this with one of my players, they don't really like that kind of conflict in their stories and it def came up when we played Masks, and their playbook pushed them into conflict with the previous generations of their legacy. They like their characters to be uncompromising in their ideals and to have that be backed up by the tilt of the story, similarly, they don't like conflict within the group, they prefer everyone be doing their best. It's kind of interesting though, because the need to make it something that will be challenged, from a literary perspective, imposes the idea of situational compromises on the kind of story it is.

It kind of dovetails with my impression of "play your character like a stolen car" where play in Masks, which features moves that always point back to modifying the character's self-image, feels like it reminds me of certain kinds of fiction, but not others and demand a kind of movement every session. In the first of the two linked series, character drama plays a constant role where the protagonists are confronted constantly with the dramatic questions produced by their backstories, personalities, and beliefs, and they often act recklessly in response to those things which produces constant cliffhangers and status quo changes in their relationships-- but in the second linked series the characters 'turn' (in the sense of ships) more slowly, and they spend a lot of time inhabiting their status quo while the attention is on the situation itself that they find themselves in, but then their private worlds eventually do explode in particular arcs or events.

What I've noticed comparing the two, is that Supernatural's character development is a lot more reflective because the monster-of-the-week narratives introduced by the setting and premise frequently lets their internal conflicts breathe over the course of a season, it spends more time examining who the characters are, and less time changing them-- in other words, it develops the characters rather than the characters develop. They let a lot of things happen where Dean just gets to be Dean without challenging the things that make him Dean, and the monster of the week story carries the need for dramatic conflict because it's a self-contained story nested within the grander narrative. I found myself preferring Supernatural for that reason, separately I also realized that I deeply preferred its more fully realized exploration of it's setting rules as set up for things that happen.

I think it's just something that games don't tend to be designed around though, and while I seem to get that more in the higher prep, traddier games I can recognize it's more because of the things they don't do (point the consequences back to the character's sense of self immediately, like Vices and Stress in BITD or Mask's labels, which both pull your character's inner self directly into the gameplay loop) rather than what they do.

Its an interesting thought. I mean, I don't see any reason why you can't pace things differently. It may be pretty tricky game design in the sense that you have a game that delivers well on, say, presenting a character with challenges to their beliefs. Will it also do a good job at other things? Sometimes these goals are at cross-purposes in game design. Not to say I think its impossible, I have no real idea. It might require some pretty specific game architecture though, and then is it going to handle a range of different player preferences? Hard to say.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Its an interesting thought. I mean, I don't see any reason why you can't pace things differently. It may be pretty tricky game design in the sense that you have a game that delivers well on, say, presenting a character with challenges to their beliefs. Will it also do a good job at other things? Sometimes these goals are at cross-purposes in game design. Not to say I think its impossible, I have no real idea. It might require some pretty specific game architecture though, and then is it going to handle a range of different player preferences? Hard to say.

I guess it could break down into:

1. You need core activities that happen and can sustain game play even when the inner conflict of the self isn't playing out. Simple enough, all the combat, exploration, negotiation and so forth of ye trad RPG, or any other mechanics that could give the characters things to do, like farming or something.

2. The part DND doesn't generally have, a mechanic to structure your long term emotional development and make you develop it in small ways, but result in dramatic payoff ala the player's arc for the season, in tv show terms. It would be like those other mechanics, but a slower burn and it would be advanced via that reflective action.

You can "just do it" now but the group has to structure it by hand.

 

[Pedantic]

I guess it could break down into:

1. You need core activities that happen and can sustain game play even when the inner conflict of the self isn't playing out. Simple enough, all the combat, exploration, negotiation and so forth of ye trad RPG, or any other mechanics that could give the characters things to do, like farming or something.

2. The part DND doesn't generally have, a mechanic to structure your long term emotional development and make you develop it in small ways, but result in dramatic payoff ala the player's arc for the season, in tv show terms. It would be like those other mechanics, but a slower burn and it would be advanced via that reflective action.

You can "just do it" now but the group has to structure it by hand.

This resonates with how I've generally felt trying to play BitD. I constantly felt like I was on tenterhooks and waiting for stuff to stop happening, so I could play the game. Like, I wanted to stop at some point, take the setup that was created by the mechanics and move it to some other game for resolution, before turning back to them to generate something new.

 

[Baron Opal II]

The example that always stuck with me was the code of honour, I think from Ron Edwards.

The gist of it is that in some games if your PC has a code of honour, the expectation is largely that you will embody that at all times during play. It's a static fact of your character. 'I'm a samurai, we don't do that here'.

But in a narrativist game the expectation might be that your code of honour is a time bomb waiting to explode. Do you betray it now? How about now? How about now? It may be that the character does stand firm on it, in which case we will explore the cost in terms of battles not won, friends not helped, etc. Or it may be that the character breaks the code, and the consequences are to their position, their family name, etc. Either way there is a choice to make and a price to pay, and things cannot stay as they were originally. The character is in flux.

I believe this is a false dichotomy, or, at least, an automatic assumption on one side.

In a game where the character's beliefs and identity is explicitly going to be challenged, it's going to be challenged. If not, then it may be challenged depending on how the character changes and grows through play. But, there's no reason that a core belief or identity would not be challenged, especially if it becomes a source of adventure. However you define adventure.

 

[pemerton]

I believe this is a false dichotomy, or, at least, an automatic assumption on one side.

In a game where the character's beliefs and identity is explicitly going to be challenged, it's going to be challenged. If not, then it may be challenged depending on how the character changes and grows through play. But, there's no reason that a core belief or identity would not be challenged, especially if it becomes a source of adventure. However you define adventure.

There's no false dichotomy.

Look at how D&D classically handles alignment. And related ideas like paladins falling from grace; the GM deciding a cleric's god withholds spells if the cleric does wicked things; etc. These are all analogous to:

the expectation is largely that you will embody that at all times during play. It's a static fact of your character. 'I'm a samurai, we don't do that here'.

That is a different way of approaching moral/behavioural parameters, in RPGing, from this:

things cannot stay as they were originally. The character is in flux.

Just as one example: the concept of alignment-based or personality-based "gotcha' GMing makes sense as part of the critical repertoire for the first sort of approach.

Whereas that concept has no purchase for the second sort of approach.

 

[Baron Opal II]

There's no false dichotomy.

Look at how D&D classically handles alignment.

Why? 5e doesn't handle alignment in a classical manner. Among other reasons, that's why it is false. In AD&D there were certainly "gotcha" mechanics for paladins, which were completely tiresome along with Lawful Tyrannical play. However, currently, not only are there several oaths for paladins there is explicitly an oath for the oathbreakers.

Good grief, even with my mutant AD&D I've mostly thrown alignment out.

If the character is honorable, then the milieu responds to that according to the worldbuilding / setting, be it reinforcement or challenge. And the challenge could be how do you deal with betrayal or dishonorable people.

Ultimately, I think that the order of Worldbuilding / Setting => Character or Character => Worldbuilding / Setting is irrelevant. The key part is Character => Situation. I need to know what kind of game my players want. Presumably, they will make their characters in accord with that desire and will seek out those situations appropriately.

(Received BW via the post, reading now.)

 

[Manbearcat]

If the character is honorable,

Who decides this is one major pivot point.

Is it systemitized?

Is it table consensus/negotiation?

Is it GM decides (unilaterally)?

What informs this systemization, negotiation/consensus, or GM decides (unilaterally) is another major pivot point.

then the milieu responds to that according to the worldbuilding / setting

This (above), which looks like naturalistic extrapolation + genre logic, is one way to operationalize the above.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Who decides this is one major pivot point.

What informs this systemization, negotiation/consensus, or GM decides (unilaterally) is another major pivot point.

Okay...

And?

I mean, yes, if I'm playing Bushido, Pendragon, Burning Wheel, or Vampire: the Masquerade the precise game definitions are important. If I'm playing D&D with an honor system addon the precise definition is important.

 

[Manbearcat]

Okay...

And?

I mean, yes, if I'm playing Bushido, Pendragon, Burning Wheel, or Vampire: the Masquerade the precise game definitions are important. If I'm playing D&D with an honor system addon the precise definition is important.

And where your game lands on the fault line of either of those pivot points is going to create a matrix for play which works out as a dichotomy.

If you're a 5e table and your (i) GM decides unilaterally what happens and what operationalizes that happening is (i) the GM's particular conception of naturalistic causal logic and extrapolation of setting then your table experience is going to be quite different than if you're a 5e table and your table decides by (ii) some manner of negotiated consensus what happens and what operationalizes that happening is (ii) what creates the best story outcomes for the most participants at the table.

And if you mix and match (i) and (ii) (either arbitrarily and opaquely or via declared organized principles and transparently so), then that formulation will create a very different experience than either of the two above.