In your RPGing, who chooses the antagonists/opposition - players or GM?

[Manbearcat]

Does this geas work similar to the D&D geas? I'm asking because I wanted to see how much lee-way the PC has of delaying/ignoring/side-questing this issue.

I don't know how @darkbard is handling this, but I would handle it 3-fold:

1) Start a (always table-facing) Clock (10 ticks) when this happens and Tick it once right off the bat. Call it "Death's Bargain."

2) Whenever the PC is doing something that isn't actively engaged with Death's dictate, make a soft move with some framing that portends consequence for their lack of urgency (show signs of an approaching threat or reveal an unwelcome truth). If a PC-move derived complication occurs, (1) tick the clock and (2) make manifest/act upon the badness you've portended.

3) Clock ticks full and "Death Strikes Back."

 

[Emerikol]

I would say that it happens every way at one time or another just like our real world. If I'm walking down the street, and a mugger attacks me then I didn't pick that enemy. On the other hand, if I work for the DEA and I'm in hot pursuit of a drug lord then I've chosen my enemy.

So in D&D, sometimes the group chooses by deciding to invade the long forgotten tomb and other times heroism is thrust upon them. If the local village is attacked by gnolls, I suppose the group could ignore them or run away but usually they get drawn into the fight to defend the village. Ultimately to a degree it is player choice to decide the degree they want to be involved but even that has exceptions.

 

[darkbard]

Does this geas work similar to the D&D geas? I'm asking because I wanted to see how much lee-way the PC has of delaying/ignoring/side-questing this issue.

It's largely under the player's control how aggressively to pursue this, but there are some mechanical perks and prods at play to keep it simmering (so far in the background).

I modeled the implementation on DW's Paladin Quest, as follows:

Geas: Destroy the phylactery of the lich Ny-Hor.
Boon: An unwavering sense of direction to the phylactery of Ny-Hor.
Boon: When making a move in direct fulfillment of this geas (ask the GM), take +1 forward.
Bane: When choosing not to act to extinguish an undead creature of which you are aware, take -1 ongoing until you atone (the GM will tell you how).

So far (three subsequent sessions since this was introduced), the geas has come into play mostly through player initiation as color, as she has chosen to describe her character's attention "drifting off" from conversation or the present situation to heed a faint compulsion. But as she (and the Immolator Tiefling NPC have now journeyed closer to the phylactery (ie, deeper into the Underdark and Tiefling kingdom; I have no idea where the phylactery might be, specifically), I have described her pull to it getting slightly stronger as she draws closer.

 

[Umbran]

Both.

If a player lays out an antagonist in a backstory that would be useful going forward, we are likely to use that antagonist. But, I also insert new antagonists as play continues. If players decide to pursue a minor figure that I didn't originally intend to be pivotal, well, that figure becomes more pivotal.

I don't usually have players saying, "Hey, GM, I know we've been running for a year, but I think I have an entirely new antagonist I'd like to see in the game."

 

[DemoMonkey]

For my games, the DM creates all the NPCs, either in advance as part of their world building or during emergent play.

The significance of that character to the PCs is largely up to the players.

The guy guiding your mules is now a trusted companion who gets a share of the treasure? Thumbs up.

That one random bandit who got away even though you put an arrow in his leg is now your nemesis? Cool, guess I better give him a gang.

You yell "Screw this!" and leap over the table to gank the Evil Vizier? Huh. He's a corpse now. Guess the whole "Power behind the throne" plotline is moot.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's largely under the player's control how aggressively to pursue this, but there are some mechanical perks and prods at play to keep it simmering (so far in the background).

I modeled the implementation on DW's Paladin Quest, as follows:

Geas: Destroy the phylactery of the lich Ny-Hor.
Boon: An unwavering sense of direction to the phylactery of Ny-Hor.
Boon: When making a move in direct fulfillment of this geas (ask the GM), take +1 forward.
Bane: When choosing not to act to extinguish an undead creature of which you are aware, take -1 ongoing until you atone (the GM will tell you how).

So far (three subsequent sessions since this was introduced), the geas has come into play mostly through player initiation as color, as she has chosen to describe her character's attention "drifting off" from conversation or the present situation to heed a faint compulsion. But as she (and the Immolator Tiefling NPC have now journeyed closer to the phylactery (ie, deeper into the Underdark and Tiefling kingdom; I have no idea where the phylactery might be, specifically), I have described her pull to it getting slightly stronger as she draws closer.

I think the juxtaposition of our approaches (myself hypothetically using a Clock and you using a reskinned Paladin Oath move) is really good stuff for this thread and for anyone interested in running a PBtA game.

They both have overlap in the overarchaing Game Theory that the player would engage with as decision-points accrue, but there is also enough daylight between them that actuating them in play would lead to subtly different play and inhabited cognitive space.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan, thanks for that post. How did you go about (if at all) establishing connections/dispositions between the 30-odd factions that were collectively created, and the NPC villain that you had created? Is that a GM decision, or do you have to hand the players some "ownership" of your NPC?

For the faction relations, some of them were pretty obviously positioned to be enemies, and others were obvious allies. We leaned on those apparent dynamics, and left a lot of the more in depth relations to determine in play.

The "main villain" is the organization that created the barrier that encloses the nation, called Eclipse. Their actions kind of serve as a kicker to the campaign. After that, they're kind of present in that they have overthrown the dictator and seized his palace, and are kind of slowly taking territory throughout the islands. In that sense, I don't think that the players have much ownership over that NPC organization.

Others, however, I'd say that is more the case. I ask questions of the players to fill in gaps about what we know of a given organization or NPC, and to establish some of those connections. I think in a lot of cases, we've drawn heavily from super hero comic tropes and ideas, and so there are some baked in details or implications.

For example, one of the other main factions, and the most direct opposition to Eclipse, is The Brainstorm, which is an enclave of super scientists and engineers very much like Marvel's A.I.M., but without the beekeeper suits. One of the players said "This island sounds like a place A.I.M. would hang out" and that's how that came about. We decided that they were the true power behind the throne of the dictator, so to speak, and so they have the most to lose from this invasion of their territory.

So that makes it easier to kind of see where all these pieces fit. Kind of like your comment about @Ovinomancer 's use of mind flayers; certain ideas just leap out based on the tropes and the inspirations we're drawing from. A lot of this is collaboration, or me as GM building on what we've set up together, or what a player has suggested.

For the personal rivals, I'd say there is even more ownership by the players. I essentially leave the details about those NPCs up to the player to decide, and the nature of their relationship. I play the NPC in any actual interactions, but those are generally framed by what the player has established.

 

[darkbard]

Fully player chosen? Who introduced the unscrupulous employer into the fiction? The language of "encountered" suggests that, at the table, the GM was narrating these events and the existence of these NPCs. Is that right?


Again, how did the Devourer become part of the shared fiction? Was this posited by your wife? Or you? - I know that "ask questions" is a standard GM technique in DW. Or was this GM narration?

I think Manbearcat's subsequent reply above does a great job of illustrating the dynamic of interplay between articulated or implied PC drives, mechanical resolution, and GM input in response to your inquiry, but I'm happy to elucidate further if you have lingering questions.

 

[pemerton]

Kind of like your comment about @Ovinomancer 's use of mind flayers; certain ideas just leap out based on the tropes and the inspirations we're drawing from.

I was thinking this same thing as I was reading through your post.

very much like Marvel's A.I.M., but without the beekeeper suits.

I XPed your post, but it took real force of will to disregard this TRAVESTY!

(Also, aren't they hazmat?)

 

[pemerton]

I would say that it happens every way at one time or another just like our real world. If I'm walking down the street, and a mugger attacks me then I didn't pick that enemy. On the other hand, if I work for the DEA and I'm in hot pursuit of a drug lord then I've chosen my enemy.

So in D&D, sometimes the group chooses by deciding to invade the long forgotten tomb and other times heroism is thrust upon them. If the local village is attacked by gnolls, I suppose the group could ignore them or run away but usually they get drawn into the fight to defend the village. Ultimately to a degree it is player choice to decide the degree they want to be involved but even that has exceptions.

This doesn't really answer the question asked in the OP, which is about authorship.

So who gets to establish that as the PCs walk down the street, a mugger attacks them. Who authors the long-forgotten tomb and its contents? Or the attacking gnolls? Using what sort of process?