NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6208767" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?6681948-N-raac" target="_blank">N'raac</a> The "potentially internally inconsistent due to uncanvassed/elusive backstory" angle still has legs it seems.  Most of all of this is setting assumptions and extrapolations you're making for what you perceive would engender internal consistency.  This on its own is indicative of the playstyle difference that I outlined above between primacy/driver of the extremely high resolution setting mandate of the playstyle agenda you're pursuing in your game and the primacy/driver of the low resolution that I seek in my own.  Obviously this resolution disparity is exacerbated by the dynamics in play here; backstory was even more subordinate to the immediate action of the scene because this isn't a long term campaign.  All we were trying to do here is relate how "indie play" (you chose 4e as the medium) would resolve the "obstinate chamberlain" conflict versus how its done in other play.  The fact that you are very much "stuck on setting internal consistency" is actually instructive.  Its a core principle central to the dispute.  I have, as of yet, to compose the 3.x DMG analysis nor have I composed the full analysis of the play-post but I've done a few pieces here and there.  Let me try to address a couple of bits and bobs with my own focused questions of which I will then answer.1)  Do the players bear intimate knowledge of the king's "moral bank account?"  Let us take a quick look at pemerton's answer below:This is spot on for an in-world justification.  How many celebrities in this world have alleged to have established a deep and wide reputation for good will, of "doing things the right way"...only to be exposed as a complete fabrication.  In the Nicomachean Ethics sense, how man "unjust men" have sought the intangible spoils of the reputation of the "just man" while reaping the tangible spoils of the "unjust man"?  I would say they are legion and likely predominate the moral spectrum of our world.  Kings are certainly not exempt from this any more than peasants.However, I think you can get a sense further from what pemerton scribes below:and...lets take a quick peek at the vestigal stages of the scene:Insofar as there is an establishment of backstory to legitimize the scene, you have it here.  The player of the Paladin has asserted (demonstrably - channeling the very divinity of his god's voice in doing so) that they are on a divine quest and his very god (the god of justice who is aligned very specifically against chromatic dragons) has an interest in the just resolution of this conflict.Mid-way, in the combat the player made the conflict between Bahamut and  Tiamat personal by searing the drake with Bahamut's sign, in his own  divine radiance.  Finally, at the end we also have:Ok.  So a dream of manifest destiny to end the dragon's reign and free the kingdom from its macabre despotism.  This was established in play by the player.  I give my players this kind of authority regularly.  However, if this was a regular 4e campaign, what would likely have happened is:Given the players PC build choices he has requested thematic content which pits bahamut squarely against tiamat with his role as "administrator of justice" or "facilitator of his will."  In other games, player-authored "kickers" (scene openers that are then to be resolved in play) is a classic "Indie" technique.  My player may have overtly hooked me with a request for a dream of omniscience and then some sort of subsquent "divining rod" aspect to play that led them to this kingdom.  After that initial player-authoring, I would then frame it with respect to the player's request, I would then assume the natural (what you're generally used to) role of authority over the "surrounding backstory mesh" to make it cohere, framing them directly into the conflict and we would "find out what happens."I've just stopped mid-stride because this is key so I'm going to go into this a little deeper.  This is actually a pretty seminal point in understanding (a) what "let's see what happens" means and (b) what GM role is in an "Indie game."  Why is setting not utterly fixed?  Because authorial control for players is mandate.  Every question and presupposition you are asking is key to a deep immersion, classic sandbox; causal logic, internal consistency, off-screen-living/breathing world predominance.  While those principles are key to that style of play, the level of "pre-play establishment of setting" (fixedness) is antagonistic toward player authorship.  If they have to vet all manner of thematic inclinations by either pouring through canon or requesting my quality control, (i) play would screech to a grinding halt or, worse still, (ii) they would just give up in frustration or boredom with the QC process (and its mental overhead requirements and its affect on the pacing of actual play).So they do have some responsibility to not go too far afield with their authorship.  If you cannot trust your players to not go too far afield (either genre deviation or established, in-play or out, backstory deviation), then either (i) find new players, (ii) teach your existing players how and let them garner experience through play, or (iii) keep doing what youre doing because you're all enjoying it!  If you don't care to play under the auspices of this creative agenda then you're none the worse for wear!What is a more central requrement of the GM skill-set in this creative agenda but subordinate in something like AP play or granular process-sim sandboxing (where all backstory is fixed)?  Immediate assimilation of new information and effective improvisation.  I enjoy this aspect of GMing as much, or more, than anything.  This style of play (i) tests me and (ii) I get to "see what happens" because I don't know what happens beforehand.  As a 28 year GM, I've grown weary of certain elements of GMing and have grown more and more fond of i and ii above.  My players enjoy that command and control of backstory is dispersed amidst the table as they want limited scene-framing authority and they certainly want universal scene-reframing authority (the kind of which that are central to this thread - Fighter vs Wizard disparity!).  Finally, the resolution mechanics.  If we don't consult the resolution mechanics as ultimate arbiters of "what happens" with input from the prior fictional positioning then (A) I don't get to "see what happens" ( <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /> ) and (B) they lose the authenticity of their scene-framing and re-framing authority (re-framed through the deployment of resources and its effect on the evolution of the fictional positioning) (also <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /> ).  So then.  Through the principles, techniques and system (impetus and machinery), myself and my players have our needs met.A relevant pemerton quote applicable to what I have scribed directly above:Going to try to clarify this one more time (with brevity hopefully).What is important to the scene at hand?  What are the PCs trying to accomplish.  That is 1st order.  Anything else is 2nd (or 3rd) order and, while still relevant, subordinate.  In this case, the bluffing of the drake/chamberlain was solely a proxy to facilitate the immediate goal (this is central) of resolving the action scene toward the players' inclinations; successful audience with king and granting of resources/means/deputization.  If the question is "would you violate the bluff's result of the now established duped drake?", then the answer is two-fold.  (1) The drake was contrived solely as a means to express the players protagonism as they pushed against his interests.  He may or may not come up later.  If he is, the full weight of their engagement will certainly be central (or else what is the point).  (2) Given that the players immediate intent would not be despoiled by the drakes much later understanding of the ruse, there is no violation.  There would be no "deprotagonization" for the drake to later discover the ruse as he can't go back in time and undo the players protagonization and the facilitation of the scene toward the end they sought.  Player intent with respect to the immediate thematic conflict (now), and the GM adherence to and application of that newly gained fictional positioning is what is of consequence.  What comes later, outside the scope of that intent, would only be fodder for new thematic conflict (if used at all).  Remember, off-screen "living, breathing world" (although certainly a principle...we don't want a dead and dessicated world afterall!) is subordinate to on-screen conflict right now (!).Finally, is it sensical or sensible for power-players/brokers (goodly aligned or neutral) to seek audience with and attain formal proclamation of mutual interests/consent/partnership with those on the other side of the table (or those who are in a position of power, not diametrically opposed, but orthogonal to their own)?  I would say that the world is absolutely weighed down with examples of this.  So if we're taking our cues from causal logic, we've got plenty to ammunition.  Abraham Lincoln's "courting of the south" was a perfect example of this.  His 1st order interest was to end slavery.  However, the ending of slavery in America would mean nothing if the Union failed and that interest was only slightly subordinate to the passage of the 13th ammendment to the United States Constitution.  Lincoln was an extraordinary assemblage of equal parts true believer/idealogue and utilitarian.  So he puts on a good show and "courts the south" all the while vilifying their ethos.  What's more, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not remotely estranged from classic genre ficton.  As a guide for thematic (romantic or sword and sorcery) high fantasy play, it is readily accessible.</blockquote>

Verification