Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 6202542" data-attributes="member: 386">What tends to happen in indie games - typically in response to the reward system - is that the characters change based on the actions they take during scenes.  What's more, the DM in indie games doesn't have an endpoint in mind.  So what generally happens is that the PCs engage in conflict during a scene, the conflict changes their characters - what they want and what they are willing to get it - and the DM frames the next scene based on how the characters have changed.You could say it's linear only if you look back in retrospect and count the choices you made, and how they brought you into this situation instead of any number of possible ones.  ("If only I had been able to convince the Chamberlain to let us see the king.  We would not be fighting this war.")[sblock=examples]One example from my play in Burning Wheel, a few years ago now so it's hazy: My human PC was fighting against the evil elf queen with the good elf PCs.  He was captured and broken by the elf queen.  My PC's beliefs & goals changed.  I ended up going into battle with the other PCs, and they killed me.  Though there was tension between my PC and the elf PCs, the DM didn't set that up and lead us to it.Another example from last weekend's play of Burning Empires:  One PC's henchman kidnapped the Contre-Duke's Chamberlain in the first session.  (1) She tortured the Chamberlain and made him loyal to the PC. (2)  (She was able to keep him in hiding from the Contre-Duke's agents.) (2a) Then she released the Chamberlain, bringing him personally to the Contre-Duke. The Contre-Duke took the PC's henchman and personally interrogated her. (3) The PC's henchman was able to convince the Contre-Duke and his interrogator that she had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and that the PC's group - the Olympi - should be granted the right to bear arms as a mercenary anvil (army) for the Contre-Duke's house. (4)(1) In the first conflict, the PC and her henchman used an assassination attempt on the Contre-Duke to cover the kidnapping.  If that had played out differently - if she had failed - none of the rest could have happened.  (In fact, riots would have broken out across the world, and then the game would be quite different.)(2) In the second conflict, the PC's henchman could have failed to sway the Chamberlain's loyalties.  Would she have killed him?  Or just held on to him?  At any rate, she'd have to change her plans.(2a) I think I detailed this example in a previous post.  One of the other PCs had his men looking for the Chamberlain in order to gain favour with the Contre-Duke.  He failed and OH CRAP I just see a potential avenue of conflict I missed in the game.  Nards.  (I went easy on the PC who failed and let him have another crack at the Contre-Duke (because the Contre-Duke is nominally on the PC's side, as mandated by the game's set-up); I could have - should have - had another antagonist pressure the Contre-Duke for support.)(3) The PCs tried to have the PC's henchman interrogated by more friendly forces, under their control, but failed.  This didn't change much but it did raise the stakes.(4) The PC's henchman did well in her conflict, and got most of what she wanted.This isn't really about "leaving breadcrumbs" as I understand it; if the PC failed at almost any point along this path, the situation would have changed.  Possibly quite dramatically.  (Death warrants, planetary bombardment, divorce - all possibilities...)[/sblock]Not really.  "Say yes" is part of a rule that says you only roll when there's a conflict to resolve.  On its own, that doesn't mean the DM's will isn't being imposed on the game's outcomes - the DM determines when there's a conflict and when there is not.However, if you combine "say yes" with other DMing principles - provide antagonism to challenge the PC's beliefs and goals - with mechanics that limit the amount of mechanical pressure the DM can bring to bear (or "maintain the consistency of the game world", though that can be tricky and raise conflict of interest issues), then the DM is limited in how much he or she can control outcomes.So the DM "says yes" - doesn't engage in the conflict/action resolution mechanics to resolve a PC's action - because there is no conflict here and the DM wants to 1) hold onto scarce resources to use at a more dramatic moment or 2) because it would make no sense for this NPC to challenge the PC's beliefs and goals at this moment.  (Or 1 & 2.  This is generally what keeps a game from being dull - focus on the important conflicts, not the unimportant ones.  It also keeps the DM from imposing his or her will on the outcome, making sure that the players have agency - also called "protagonism".)Anyway, manbearcat covers this in his post.</blockquote>

Verification