Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9637029" data-attributes="member: 42582">The only thing I am militant against is obscurantism.When I read people posting about thee players exploring the setting, for instance, I want to know what is actually happening in play.Like, on a couple of occasions I've had the opportunity to "explore" Rome. I walked around, looked at buildings, was surprised by fountains and stairways and doorways that I wasn't expecting. I was awestruck by the Pieta.But if I told you I had "explored" Rome when, what I had actually done, was to sit opposite a friend who answered questions I asked by reading from a Lonely Planet guide, that would be ridiculous.If what is happening in play is that the GM is telling the players things, then I don't see why we can't talk about that. If those things are either taken wholesale from, or very closely derived, from things that the GM (or the module author, or whatever) wrote down in advance, then I don't see why we can't talk about that.And the notion that it is dismissive to do so is absurd. It's not dismissing someone's play to set about actually describing the process that occurs when they engage in it.I mean, here's a post where I posted my regional map for Torchbearer:When the PCs move from place to place, I pull out my map and we all look at it to identify where the PCs are travelling to and from. Of course, in our imaginations the PCs are trudging through the Troll Fens, or sailing down a river in their jury-rigged raft, or whatever. But at the table what we're actually doing is consulting the map.In that same thread you can also see a couple of dungeon (maps and notes) that I've posted. When the players have had their PCs explore those dungeons, I've used my notes to tell them (the players) what their PCs experience. Here's just one example of what was probably 10 or so minutes of play:I had already, in a previous session, referred to my notes of Megloss's house to (i) remind myself about the weakness of the floor, and (ii) inform the players of this, in accordance with the rules of the game:With this existing knowledge, Golin's player was able to declare actions that fit the fiction, namely, breaking through the floor.I then consulted my notes, and prompted by them described the small statute that the PCs could see. Fea-bella's player then declared her desire to recognise it. That enlivens a test, which was failed, which then requires a GM decision: either success with a condition (as happened when Golin's player failed the Dungeoneer test for the two PCs to enter Megloss's dusty back room); or a twist. I opted for a twist, and then consulted my list of twists, and opted for the Corpse Candle.This use of prep is a difference between (say) Torchbearer and Burning Wheel, and also (I would suggest) between Torchbearer and Dungeon World.The prep itself was informed by aspects of PC builds: the NPC Megloss was introduced into the shared fiction by Fea-bella's player (as the PC's enemy), and the core of the dungeon beneath Megloss's house was built around themes of Elven dreaming and Elven nightmares, that Fea-bella's player had made central to the game.But there were also standard dungeon self-referential elements ("clues") - eg the statuette was a clue to <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/torchbearer-2e-actual-play-of-this-awesome-system.691233/post-8874718" target="_blank">a demon trapped in a room in the dungeon</a> - as well as aspects that simply seemed to me like they would be fun/interesting for the players, like <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/torchbearer-2e-actual-play-of-this-awesome-system.691233/post-8833084" target="_blank">the viewing throne</a>.Now, to what extent is the goal of Torchbearer play to learn the content of the GM's notes? It's a component of play, as seen in the examples I've given of inspecting the dusty room, and inspecting the statuette. Unlike classic mystery-solving play, it's not the central focus - once the players have solved whatever mysteries there are, they are then expected to do things; and the process of establishing the mysteries, which - as per what I've posted above - links to player-authored priorities for their PCs, means that there will be things the players are likely to want their PCs to do.The rules systems of (i) player declared actions generating tests or conflicts, rather than GM decision-making as to whether or not they succeed, and (ii) twists on failed tests, also reduce the centrality of the GM's notes/prep. These serve as a platform or starting point; but the crux and highlights of play are not the mystery- or puzzle-solving.</blockquote>

Verification