Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9625401" data-attributes="member: 85870">I know you aren't purposefully meaning to offend with this comment, but I have to say, your description here feels dismissive of the PbtA/FitD approach. Why is there an an assumption that in PbtA / FitD / Ironsworn the majority of &quot;facts&quot; or &quot;truths&quot; are yet to be made up? Like, somehow, because every single fine detail isn't written in stone, that somehow the players are working in a &quot;primordial sludge&quot; of some kind of Inception-style amorphous mind-space that is impossible to comprehend, and anything the players do in that space is ultimately meaningless?In reality, the &quot;liminal space&quot; between pre-authored backstory and what's left to in-play discovery is usually ~5-10% of the total fictional framing. Often less than that, occasionally a little more. But no matter which, the players aren't starting from zero. There's still a ton of backstory and framing already in play. There are always vectors for them to pursue in the goal of uncovering &quot;the truth of the mystery.&quot; But that 10% makes a huge difference in allowance. All I'm doing is leaving enough wiggle room in the premises to allow for the unforeseen and dramatic, and giving myself room to focus on that---if I so choose to---by following the principles espoused in the Ironsworn system. One of PbtA's core principles is Give the players their due. When the players win, they get to win. If they overcome the collective obstacles needed to solve the mystery, no single die roll is going to deny them that win. BitD / Ironsworn's use of clocks/objective trackers makes very easy to chart individual &quot;evidence threads&quot; and compare their overall progress. If they fulfill the grounding requirements of &quot;closing the investigation&quot; (i.e., all the clocks are full), the players win, period.&nbsp; If I happen to choose Solution X, Solution Y, or Solution Z at the very last moment, it will always follow from what has already been established, including actions and moves taken by the players to that point. In the majority of cases, the actual &quot;truth of the mystery&quot; doesn't deviate from the pre-prepped material---but what does deviate are the suddenly heretofore unknown connections between elements that play has revealed, or a shift in perception or motivation for one of the mystery's participants, or a crucial piece of evidence suddenly becomes more germane to the proceedings.And yes, occasionally, a new &quot;Solution XY&quot; or &quot;Solution YZ&quot; may arise if the players' pursuits create a golden opportunity to drive the action in a way that they're angling for. But that &quot;solution ending&quot; will never negate any of the players' prior efforts or discoveries. If it does, I-as-GM am no longer playing FitD / Ironsworn in full faith.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 9625401, member: 85870"] I know you aren't purposefully meaning to offend with this comment, but I have to say, your description here feels dismissive of the PbtA/FitD approach. Why is there an an assumption that in PbtA / FitD / [I]Ironsworn[/I] the majority of "facts" or "truths" are yet to be made up? Like, somehow, because every single fine detail isn't written in stone, that somehow the players are working in a "primordial sludge" of some kind of [I]Inception[/I]-style amorphous mind-space that is impossible to comprehend, and anything the players do in that space is ultimately meaningless? In reality, the "liminal space" between pre-authored backstory and what's left to in-play discovery is usually ~5-10% of the total fictional framing. Often less than that, occasionally a little more. But no matter which, the players aren't starting from zero. There's still a ton of backstory and framing already in play. There are always vectors for them to pursue in the goal of uncovering "the truth of the mystery." But that 10% makes a huge difference in allowance. All I'm doing is leaving enough wiggle room in the premises to allow for the unforeseen and dramatic, and giving myself room to focus on that---[I]if I so choose to---[/I]by following the principles espoused in the [I]Ironsworn [/I]system. One of PbtA's core principles is [I]Give the players their due[/I]. When the players win, [I]they get to win[/I]. If they overcome the collective obstacles needed to solve the mystery, no single die roll is going to deny them that win. BitD / [I]Ironsworn[/I]'s use of clocks/objective trackers makes very easy to chart individual "evidence threads" and compare their overall progress. If they fulfill the grounding requirements of "closing the investigation" (i.e., all the clocks are full), the players win, period. If I happen to choose Solution X, Solution Y, or Solution Z at the very last moment, it will always follow from what has already been established, [I]including [/I]actions and moves taken by the players to that point. In the majority of cases, the actual "truth of the mystery" doesn't deviate from the pre-prepped material---but what does deviate are the suddenly heretofore unknown connections between elements that play has revealed, or a shift in perception or motivation for one of the mystery's participants, or a crucial piece of evidence suddenly becomes more germane to the proceedings. And yes, occasionally, a new "Solution XY" or "Solution YZ" may arise if the players' pursuits create a golden opportunity to drive the action in a way that they're angling for. But that "solution ending" will never negate any of the players' prior efforts or discoveries. If it does, I-as-GM am no longer playing FitD / [I]Ironsworn[/I] in full faith. [/QUOTE]

Verification