I think that may reflect some selection bias; people who are likely to enjoy 'conch-passing games' aren't likely to complain, while those with no interest don't complain because they play something else.
Agreed. But for some reason those who don't like railroading GMs, or who want something other than classic Gygaxian play, seem to come online and complain about it rather than go and find something else!
My view is that there is still a mainstream/alternative distinction of approaches here, and that while that endures, following Jhaelen's advice will probably not cause too much trouble for those who try it, given their likely mainstream starting point.
In my campaigns, I plan situations, not plots.
Typically that means I have a place, I have characters, I have a conflict, and I have motivations; what I don't have is an expected or desired outcome beyond presenting the players and their characters with choices to make.
It's practically hard scene framing!
More seriously - in setting up your situations, how much regard to you pay to the particular concerns/interests of your players as manifested through their PCs? I get the impression from your posts that you mostly have regard to genre considerations and leave it to the players to seek out their own situations, but sometimes (I'm guessing) you thrust situations upon them. In those cases, do you exercise GM control on the spot, or do you rely on your random tables and other prior prep?
as a DM I never actually give up my 'background authority'.
<snip>
When I'm preparing a dungeon, I only prepare a bare skeleton, amending and expanding as much as possible during play. But how I amend and expand on these bare bones is guided by my players' actions and what they seem to be most interested in.
<snip>
I have been asking that question, too. Except I ask it before starting a campaign and sometimes in between adventures. And naturally, I don't always grant the players' wishes
(as an aside: In 4e I've also used item wishlists. But just because an item is on a list doesn't mean, they'll ever find it. Instead it's just a way to find out what kind of items they're interested in and pick something similar when a good opportunity presents itself, i.e. when they encounter an enemy that seems likely to use something like it).
<snip>
my players wouldn't get to (consciously) decide about the nature of the high command. Instead, when preparing for the session I think about parameters that must be met and kinds of action that would lead to the high command having purpose A, B, or C. During play parameters or purposes I didn't think of may be added because of my players' ideas or actions.
All interesting stuff.
I use wishlists pretty expressly, but at least in my game I don't think this falls foul of the Czege principle, because gaining items isn't part of the challenge. I treat them as part of PC building (which I think is the default implication of 4e, despite its misleading labelling of treasure as "rewards).
I will also introduce elements into the story at the request/initiation of the PCs.When this is in the context of action resolution, I will makes it part of the skill check. So finding/obtaining the thing in question itself becomes part of resolving the challenge.
Outside the context of action resolution (eg if the PCs have just met some NPCs, and one makes the sign of his secret society to see if any members of it are among the NPCs) I use GM fiat. (4e doesn't really have anything analogous to BW's Circle or Relationships rules). So it becomes part of my framing of the situation, as GM. I think this is where [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s issues become most pressing - the worry (as I understand it) is that the GM will feel pressured to incorporate player suggestions into the framing in such a way as to amount to an "I win" button. I rely on my sense of genre, fairness and coolness to regulate this. In practice I don't think it's a problem, but I could imagine that a player who was used to BW-style Wises and Circles might find it too fiat-y.
When it comes to the backstory itself, my approach is too be more fluid than written notes, but more prepared than a literal "no myth" approach. I tend to follow
this quote from Paul Czege, although I think a bit more light-heartedly than him (the quote starts with a quote of someone else, whose suggestion about "most games" being railroads I think is aimed primarily at White Wolf or Adventure Path style play):
There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).
. . . although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.
"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. . . when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. 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. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.
The second-last sentence makes at least one significant difference from how The Shaman does things - according to what I've quote above, NPC motivations are core to The Shaman's definition of a situation. Whereas I shape the details of the backstory, including NPC personalities and motivations, as part of the process of action resolution in order to keep the pressure up to the players.
EDIT: Sometimes on these boards I see this sort of "fluid backstory" described as a form of illusionism. I don't think that it is. (At least, not necessarily.) For example, in my game if the PCs want to persuade an NPC to do something, and then the players have their PC engage in a skill challenge and win, the PC is persuaded. So the plot is shaped by the choices of the players as expressed through the actions of their PCs. That is not illusionism.
But the reasons whereby the NPC is persuaded, and the dramatic implications of persuading him/her, won't be known until the scene actually plays out, because it's only in the course of resolving the scene that the backstory that contributes to these things will become a fixed part of the fiction. (Of course, the dramatic implciations will be a consequence not only of this backstory, but of the choices the players make and the actions their PCs take. And I'll be shaping the backstory in the course of resolution in order to try and push the players to make interesting choices!)
TL;DR - just because it's not sandbox-style exploration of a pre-given world, doesn't mean that it's illusionism!
