Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8088653" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm pretty sure that how you're using player driven isn't at all what I or [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] mean by player driven.  When I say it, I mean that the players have authority to direct what play is about.  Not the GM, the players.  And they do that by how they build their characters and in play moments when they can focus play on their characters.  This doesn't mean that the GM designs story arcs about the characters, which is what you appear to mean, but that the player can, in play, choose what play is about.All largely traditional approach games. Video won't help if you find that trying narrativist approaches ends up back in traditional play in a few sessions.  Let's be clear about this.  It won't help because the problem isn't something you'll see in video of a game session, it's in how you're approaching the game.The problem here is "hence prep."  That the things that's been said -- prep isn't always required or necessary.  Or, like me, prep is a very loose thing that doesn't plan stories but instead provides situations where story can happen.The play Apocalypse World, or Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark.  See how it works in a system where you don't have the baggage, then bring over what works for you, if anything.That isn't what player engagement means.  The ask was if players are actively pushing the story or if they're falling back into passive habits.  Are they declaring actions that require the GM to answer?  Most traditional play does not do this.  This isn't a bad thing, it's just how that play is structured.Again, you're missing the point of the question.  No one is asking if you can imagine fantastic locales or events, they're asking if it's a problem imagining how play can proceed without the GM driving it.  No, it's been explained.  I've provided play examples for how I use it.  Others have as well.  You've been pointed towards lots of games and videos and resources that describe this approach and how it works.  The "you lack experience" has been in response to your earlier claims that games MUST be A to B or C or else are just random encounters.  You lack experience if you believe this to be true (which you appear to still do).  As for explaining, no one has said that this lack is what prevents you from understanding and there's been plenty of attempts to show you what this kind of play is.  You've just rejected them because they're not of an online video of people doing this in a 5e game.  The failure to expand your experience is yours, so far.And then...?  At first implies there's a second or third, but you've left this off.  It appears you still think this, in fact.Other rulesets do force GM's to use this technique, but this technique isn't one that can only exist with those rulesets.  The technique is independent, even if some rulesets force it.  The odd things here is that you reject these as valid ways to learn more about the technique.  If you wanted to learn a skill, why would you reject a teaching method that requires you to use it rather than insist on one that doesn't and works fine with your old, familiar methods?You know, it's getting really tiring to see you continually suggesting that we might all just be morons that don't know what it is we're doing because you have a pet theory.  Get over yourself.What about it was like a writer's roundtable?  You're now dismissing the play in a way that suggests you didn't follow what was going on -- something that those of us saying videos are poor tools for teaching this style of play have said over and over.  I hate watching videos of people playing Blades and I absolutely love playing it.  There's a big difference when you're right in the middle of it and you're finding out the story with the players, learning things about the world from your players, and seeing what happens.  Watching others play is, well, not nearly as interesting because I'm not a fan of those PCs and I'm not pouring adversity on them.  It's a passive engagement with what I find to be a vitally active playstyle.No, wanting a video is perfectly valid.  Arguing that absent video, the play might not be real is a fallacy.  Arguing that only a video involving 5e is valuable for showcasing this kind of play is a fallacy.  You wanting a video isn't a fallacy.  It's you arguing by lack or presence of a video that's the issue.Here's the fun thing, you can find lots of concrete examples of how to use narrativist techniques all over the place.  They mostly focus on games that are well suited for them, which isn't 5e.  The claim in this thread, by those making it, is that you can still use some of these techniques in 5e.  I've specifically pointed out how skill challenges work beautifully with this approach.  You claim we're talking in philosophies and being unclear.  We aren't, you're just not grasping the points we're making and instead substituting them with different arguments.  For example, I've clearly said I prep for my 5e games, but not everything and that I often run sessions where no prep was made because I can use narrativist techniques in play.  I've also said that I prep mostly challenges and not stories because I can then use those challenges appropriately for whatever story is being generated by player actions.  Do I occasionally prep stuff that's more traditional in 5e?  Absolutely, but I don't have to all the time.Honestly, if I wanted to play a fully narrativist style game, I'd just not play 5e.  This is what I'm doing right now with my group's rotation into Blades during the pandemic -- it's easier to play a game that doesn't require the same level of prep effort or PC continuity as what we like in our D&D.Okay, although that's fairly banal and basic advice on how to describe environments, it's decent enough.  I can find that pretty much in any random blog post on important things to do when running D&D.To counter, I gave quite concrete advice and example on how I run skill challenges.  These require no houserules, no overhead, no prep, and dramatically alter story.  To do it, start with a PC declared goal that is complex enough to warrant more than a simple check.  Then, frame the starting scene with an immediate obstacle to overcome.  Let the PC's declare actions -- whatever they want.  Adjudicate the result using the standard play loop and GM advice on adjudicating action results.  If the action is a success, either narrate that success into the current scene by having the approach work and presenting a new challenge or close that scene on the success and move to a new scene, framing a new challenge.  On a failure, do the same as above only have the scene reflect the failure in the conditions met.  The thing you're trying to do is to let the PC's actions decide what the next scene will be as a natural followup to the previous scene and the success/failure there.  Failures either add a new, worse complication or close off the approach tried.  Three failures (adjust to taste) result in a failure of the overall goal.  A number of successes (choose to taste, but recommend 3 for easy, 5 for moderate, and 7 or more for hard challenges) results in the PCs gaining their overall goal.A possible example is if the PCs decide to travel to their destination by taking a shortcut through the dark forest.  Here, the PC's goal is to gain the advantage of a shortcut.  The dark forest is a dangerous place, so this is at risk, and the trek will probably be complex.  Hence it's a good candidate for a skill challenge.  Determine the overall complexity of the challenge and decide how many successes will be needed.  Let's say this is a fairly easy challenge because the woods, while dark, may not be especially deep.  So, 3 successes before 3 failures.  Then, frame the initial problem for the players, like, "The dark woods have a reputation as a confusing place, with the canopy being so thick as to turn daytime into twilight and a lack of obvious landmarks.  How are you going to navigate the woods and keep your way?"  The players will declare an action, which will almost always lead to an obvious ability check.  Call for that check.  If the players succeed, then they have a good method for not getting lost -- don't present another challenge based on getting lost in this challenge until after a failure occurs at a minimum.  Now, since they know how to keep from being lost in the woods, frame a different challenge, perhaps one involving a beast or obstacle to travel.  If the ability check fails, then the PCs have lost their way -- reframe the scene as them discovering they've lost some time travelling in circles, and the method their using is obviously not working, so what are they going to do now?  Or, you could have that failure result in accidentally startling a dangerous creature, as they're paying more attention to finding their way than looking out for danger.  The important skill here is taking what the framing of the challenge is, the end goal, and what the players do to move through the challenge, presenting obstacles to that goal and letting the players tell you what's happening.More advanced uses of this technique would be to use it when the ultimate goal is more unfocused, and let the play of the challenge generate entirely new story and outcomes.Is this your attempt to generate gibberish in a mocking attempt of others?  I mean, talk about strawmen -- you've created a field full.We've spoken directly and clearly.  I once thought as you do, it didn't make sense to me.  I thought people were making it up, or being deliberately obtuse.  The thing is, it was me being obtuse.  I wasn't actually listening and considering what was said, I was running it against what I already did and it didn't jive, so it must be wrong.  I'm, frankly, embarrassed by some of my previous posts and have made apologies to a number of posters because of that.You say that you take what people say and then immediately say that it's hard to believe because people are being 'defensive.'  You've done this from the start -- say you accept something but then say it's hard to believe it.  You've created the very 'defensive' atmosphere that you're now using to further disclaim that you think others are telling the truth about how they play.  This is, frankly, insulting.  And not to us.</blockquote>

Verification