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: 9618968" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Ok, a little time here so I wanted to respond.  My response is exclusively centered around Narrativism, not Gamist concerns.  First, I really, really appreciate your lengthy, clarifying post.I'm going to take the direct above and answer it.  Then I'm going to grab your usage of RotJ and focus like a laser beam on one thing.ON YOUR EXAMPLE (Attached below)[ATTACH=full]400518[/ATTACH]Here are my thoughts on the above.  If the table time invested in the above is ancillary to premise, then I probably have no problem (but more on that in a moment).  If this is either (a) color or (b) basically just setup for establishing the core elements of premise to be asked-and-answered later, then we're ok.  However, I'm certainly left wondering why are we spending precious table time on conflict-neutral setup that is tantamount to exposition?  If the players have no real say, if the system has no real say nor teeth...then the GM has all the say.  If the GM has all the say, "play" ceases to be play and that table time effectively becomes exposition.  If it is presented as actual play, then bare minimum we're in Ouija territory where the GM has unilateral control of the planchette and our hands on the planchette are faux volition.Now if this table time on this content is presented as more than mere exposition/ancillary set-up and is central to premise?  We're transitioning into GM Storytime where GM Force generates, regulates, and resolves premise via (i) majority control over framing + (ii) unilateral control over stakes (especially unknown stakes) + (iii) resolution of competing motivations and attendant actions.  GM Storytime is anathema to Narrativism.  Narrativism as an agenda was a direct response to dissatisfaction with GM Storytime.My main question and position regarding the above example is why are we spending actual table time and employing the game's situation-state resolving play loop (which entails a form of action negation/block) to establish setup?It should just be handled as situation-framing and then we move to "the action."GM: "Despite your best efforts <excerpt of the efforts on Endor and its unfortunate fallout>..."[HR][/HR]ADDRESSING PREMISE: RETURN OF THE JEDII want to take your RotJ example and focus on and explore one component.Luke is a PC.  Luke wants to:* redeem his father by subverting The Emperor's seduction of Anakin Skywalker to The Dark Side...or* destroy both his father, Vader, and The Emperor, if he must.Vader is a PC.  Vader wants to (in order):* seduce Luke to The Dark Side so they can destroy The Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son...or* seduce Luke to The Dark Side for his master, The Empereror...or* if his hand is forced, realize his master's skepticism and fulfill his bidding by destroying Luke.* realize Luke's steadfast belief in him, allowing his son to "save" him, by destroying The Emperor's grip upon Vader.The Emperor is the GM. The Emperor wants to:* seduce Luke to The Dark Side so he can replace Luke's father as his new, and potentially more powerful, apprentice...or* impose his will upon Vader and force him to destroy Luke, "completing his training"...or* destroy Luke himself if Vader is incapable.In the story, we know which of the above are realized.  And we know the fallout.Luke gets what he wants but at great cost (lives lost in The Emperor's trap and his father materially perishing).The least likely outcome occurs with Vader also getting what he wants, but he pays for it with what is left of his life.The Emperor does not get what he wants.Now if we are exclusively resolving these colliding motivations and stakes, there are intense questions about how this is done.1)  Who gets to frame the scene elements and any default stakes already lost?2)  How are the inherent stakes of the scene decided?3)  How are the colliding, intrapersonal and interpersonal, motivations resolved?4)  How is the secondary fallout decided and resolved?If the GM has unilateral (or nearly so via the overriding consequential impact of their mediation) authority over 1 and 3?  I don't see how that can transcend GM Storytime into Narrativist territory as the only person giving real expression to addressing premise is the GM.  Even if either players or system have some level of input on 4, that input is basically reduced to mere color as the matters central to play have already been decided (by the GM).  If the players have some or total level of input on 2, they are still suddenly sidelined in settling the seminal, concrete matters of play (which is 3).  I don't see how there is any recourse in evaluating the experiential quality of actual play and the signature impact of actual play; the players have been de-protagonized.I can see exactly how this scene would materialize in Dogs in the Vineyard and it would be absolutely awesome.  The breakdown of authority distribution on 1-4 would be:1)  GM2)  GM, Players3)  GM, Players, System4)  Players, SystemFormatting that 3, it would go like this:* Luke's player and Vader's player are in a Just Talking conflict > Vader's player escalates to Lightsaber Duel (where the Fallout is mortal) conflict > Despite Vader's escalation giving strategic advantage, Luke's player develops a significant advantage in the conflict-scape (dice pool and their deployment of it) > Luke's player feels (but isn't sure) that Vader's player will not "fold"...the Fallout that Vader will take will be mortal...Luke will not redeem his father... > Luke's player "folds" despite that decisive advantage, putting himself at the mercy of The Emperor.* Luke's player severely outgunned by The Emperor in a Use the Force conflict (also mortal Fallout) is going to take lethal Fallout > Vader intervenes on his son's behalf, jumping into the conflict before Luke's lethal Fallout emerges, taking lethal Fallout himself but ending The Emperor's threat to Luke and The Dark Side's grip.Effing...awesome...play.  Awesome, authentic experience of play where the seminal matters are an expression of the will of the participants and the system mediating those colliding motivations and rendering fallout.Reformatting the above conception of 3 to "GM decides (or even GM mostly decides due to their significantly outsized mediating role in resolution)" turns all the qualities of the experience of actual play, the actual contribution to the matters of resolving premise (the collision of those motivations, what they're willing to risk for them, what they're willing to give up for them), and expression on their head.  The expression, the shape, the driving force of play suddenly becomes a "one man show" or near enough to it that it doesn't much matter.[HR][/HR]Hopefully this clarifies and provides some context and understanding for the (it seems) daylight between us!EDIT: Attached snip of the example I'm referring to.</blockquote>

Verification