Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6793607" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Unfortunately this is a something of a false dichotomy.  Since I've been using Dungeon World primarily to discuss things in this thread, I'm going to answer  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s invocation of the Powered By the Apocalypse engine games below while addressing this contention directly above.I would have to assume you place Dungeon World in your 1 above.  Its system (GMing advice, player incentives, rules & resolution mechanics including its normal distribution of outcomes) pushes play coherently (and very tightly) toward an inevitable and endless snowballing of adventure and danger (which may very lead to death...legitimate death driven by player autonomy...not GM "allowing it to happen").  It achieves this snowballing of adventure and danger in no small part due to the bell curve of outcomes that the system's math was engineered to achieve.  It puts the preponderance of outcomes in the 7-9 range.  This is the "best" outcome because it sustains the tension/momentum of danger/action/adventure and uncertainty as it yields success but with a worse outcome than you'd like, resulting in a hard bargain where you're giving up something you'd rather not, or an ugly choice between imperfect results. The prospect of GM force (subordination/suspension of the action resolution mechanics/game rules in order to create outcomes that the GM is inclined toward) is as completely muted as can be in TTRPGs.  This is because:A)  the "How to GM" explicitly calls for "Follow the rules" as one of its four tenets.  These rules are simple, utterly clear, coherent, and transparent.B)  "Play to find out what happens" is one of the three facets of the GM's top-down agenda.  Combined, these two basically serve as the antithesis of GM Force as, effectively, the rallying cry for GM Force is White Wolf's Golden Rule (which AD&D 2e then nabbed in its rule 0):  The GM may ignore or change any rule at any time for the sake of the story (which means a prescripted metaplot or backstory reveal...which you means you aren't "playing to find out what happens"...as its already happened!).So let us examine the contention in 1 above in greater detail:   You may be using "teaming" here in a nuanced way.  If so, I'd need to know more, but at a glance, this likely isn't accurate in the way you're meaning it.  The only "teaming at the metagame level" that takes place would likely be:- pre-play during the map-drawing process.  The GM might solicit player's input for adventuring sites.- pre-play during character building.  The GM might make suggestion for interesting Bonds to resolve during play (this is another of the "adventure/danger feedback loop" drivers that sustains the momentum of play and incentivizes players, through their PCs, to do so).- in making the map, the GMing Principles direct the GM to "Draw maps, leave blanks" and to "Ask questions and use the answers".  This is to (i) help support "playing to find out what happens" while (ii) ensuring that you have (a) only what you absolutely need (this is what your prep is for...functional prep is very much detailed in the GMing section) to "Portray a Fantastic World" and "Fill the Characters’ Lives With Adventure" (the other two components of the game's GMing Agenda)...and nothing more.  The rest will emerge through play and be established "on-screen" as you need it to fulfill your responsibilities as GM (a pliable backstory is essential for these types of games to work).   It seems to me that you're likely invoking games with a plot point economy here;  Aspects/Fate Points in Fate here or Distinctions (et al)/Plot Points in Cortex+.  I don't agree with your interpretation of the PC build components ("characters would never want such a thing") of Aspects/Dinstinctions here (they can easily be, and most often are, tied to things in life that the PC is aware of and deeply invested in...so when they come up in play, the character responding to them in the way the player declares is entirely coherent).  However, I'm not using those games as an example so I won't go deeper into it.The Dungeon World Rewards Cycle incentivizes players to play their PC based off:* Their Alignment statement (the fulfillment of which during a session provides End of Session xp) and their Bonds (the resolution of which during a session provides End of Session xp).* The understanding that failure and curiosity/discovery are the greatest teachers of all.  Every outright failure earns you a mess that you have to get yourself out of, but also earns you xp.  Discovery also earns you 1 End of Session XP.The only aspect of the Rewards Cycle that is metagame referential is the classic D&D component of Rewards Cycle of which no one seems to have a problem.  Slaying a notable monster and looting a notable treasure earns you 1 xp for either of those that you can cross off your list.  Now let us examine 2 above and see how nicely Dungeon World plays with it: The Dungeon World GMing advice instructs to do this in both prep and during play.The basic conversation of play, the PC build mechanics, the GMing advice, and the focus on the fiction (which triggers "moves" and the resolution mechanics) put players in the emotional state and OODA loop of their characters.  The game talks about "danger" and "adventure".  Insofar as those are "challenges", the game that spills out of play definitely promotes the above.Dungeon World is a resource-intensive game that requires players make functional use of (a) HPs (which don't grow from level 1 onward - unless you raise Con by 1 when you level...which improves HPs by 1), (b) several types of broad/open-descriptor item types (including uses of Adventuring Gear, Rations, Ammo), (c) coin (for Resupplying and purchasing hirelings/services), (d) management of a comparatively paltry number of spell slots for primary casters (who also have to roll dice just to properly "Cast a Spell"!) to survive a life imperiled by endless danger and adventure.This is definitely central to play.The GMs job, as noted above is to:General:* Describe the situation* Follow the rules* Make moves* (Prep and) Exploit your prepAgenda:  * Portray a fantastic world* Fill the characters’ lives with adventure* Play to find out what happensPrinciples:* Begin and end with the fiction* Draw maps, leave blanks* Address the characters, not the players* Embrace the fantastic* Make a move that follows (from the fiction that immediately preceded it)* Never speak the name of your move* Give every monster life* Name every person* Ask questions and use the answers* Be a fan of the characters (in your disposition with your players...not in your GMing of conflicts)* Think dangerous* Think offscreen, tooAs I posted upthread, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473785-Failing-Forward&p=6783921&highlight=Otthor#post6783921" target="_blank">This </a>and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473785-Failing-Forward&p=6784608&highlight=Otthor#post6784608" target="_blank">this</a> is an example of play.  It exhibits Failing Forward in a way that can be entirely lethal at the end.  At the end, Otthor's strength fails him and he falls into the darkness of the glacial crevasse, splashing down into the hypothermia-inducing underground river.  That river spills him out at the PC's ultimate destination!  That fall could have killed Otthor.  The 2nd order effect of hypothermia could have killed him (it was a danger in the following scenes that had to be dealt with).  The Roper and the Darkmantle that were the Hobgoblin Dragon Sorcerer King's pets and he had put in the basement of his stronghold to (a) serve as garbage removal and (b) protect the underground access?...they definitely could have killed him!  The fact that he was forced into a position to have to "deal with them" (he slew them, thus wrong-footing their future Parlay with the King to petition him and his Dragon overlord to assist them against the Aboleth intrusion from the Far Realm?) could have killed him (and his companions, by-proxy!).  That is what Fail Forward does.  It doesn't mean that danger and death are removed from the equation of play.  Not at all.  It means player goals are compromised (sometimes into a death spiral!) and they have to rebound/rally, be resilient to setbacks, and figure out a way forward.  It means that narrative momentum/tension & excitement at the table is maintained and play is always propelled by "something interesting/dangerous" happens.</blockquote>

Verification