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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6809752" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't know that that was in dispute.What I'm not deciding is what the PCs want (eg no fetch quests, no "adventure hooks", etc), nor whether or not they get it (no pre-authoring that the mace is not in the tower, etc).But what the GM knows when pre-authoring is different from what the GM knows when using scene-framing and "fail forward".In [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s example, the GM knew that some giant statues had been created by the PC because the player introduced that into the fiction, via action declaration.In my example, I (as GM) knew that a mace existed because a player introduced it into the fiction via backstory authorship and Belief authorship. And I knew that the mace was not in the tower, or at least not evidently so, because the players declared a Scavenging check which then failed.This is the difference that I am interested in: the players' choices and contributions establish both constraints within which, and material by reference to which, the GM authors things. It is very different from pre-authoring.I created the Dark Elf as an NPC who might be introduced, yes. But the circumstances of his appearance, whether he was to be friend or foe, whether or not he had the mace - none of those things were pre-authored.He became a foe in virtue of being introduced as part of the narration of a failed check. And because he was thereby established as a foe, he seemed an apt person to have the mace in his possession, when it turned out that the PCs could not find the mace in the tower.Given my preferences and priorities, this is very different from writing down, in advance of play: "Dark elf antagonist, wields the nickel-silver mace which he has looted from the ruined tower, will try to interfere with the PCs' water supplies and will attack them if they leave the tower via the defile."Well, obviously not everyone thinks that pre-authorship is bad. I don't think that pre-authorhsip, per se, is bad: as I've already said, my BW game uses the pre-authored GH maps and some general GH backstory. (I wouldn't be surprised if that's more pre-authorship than [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is using in the game he has referred to.)But I'm not a big fan of pre-authorship of key antagonists, plot foci, etc, because that tends to render the player's choices more-or-less irrelevant, or reduce them to choices concerning mere colour or marginal considerations ("Do we travel by horse or by wagon?"). Suppose, for instance, that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] had just decided that the PC's followers try to sacrifice here Wicker Man-style: what would be the point, then, of the player making the roll to rouse her followers into a frenzy and urge them to use the effigies to drive away their enemies? Suppose, in my own case, that I had just decided that the mace was in the hands of the dark elf and hence not in the tower - what would have been the point of the players making a check to try and find it?I'm not denying that my contributions reflect what I think is interesting. I've already quoted <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1361" target="_blank">Paul Czege</a> upthread:It's intentional as all get out. . . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.But, as I said, the players' choices and contributions establish both constraints within which, and material by reference to which, the GM authors things.</blockquote>

Verification