Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5654137" data-attributes="member: 42582">I offered my own answer to this upthread. The GM defines point A (this is "scene framing", and exercise of "situational authority"). A good GM will define point A having in mind what has gone before, and what his/her players want to do next.Point B is determined by application of the action resolution mechanics (which may include such maxims as "say yes or roll the dice"). The action resolution mechanicss, in D&D, provide for points of input both by the players and the GM. So it would be they who jointly determine point B, in the course of playing the game.In this comment, you are running together situational authority, content authority and plot authority. If you run those things together, then it becomes harder to understand how a game works which keeps them separate.As I said upthread - and I posted some examples to illustrate it - in my game I as GM exercise situational authority, content authority is shared with the players but mine is the biggest share, and plot authority is distributed and mediated via the game mechanics.Of course you can be sceptical all you like, but I always find it more interesting to try and understand how others approach the game.What I have described above, by the way, is not a sandbox. In a sandbox, roughly, the players exercise situational authority, but the GM has more content authority than in my preferred approach. (If the players exercise both situational and content authority, then they really are starting to move their PCs through a world of their own creation, which can lead to an incoherent breakdown in play.)In classic D&D sandboxing, there is also a different action resolution mechanic from my preferred one. In classic D&D sandboxing - of which [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] gives an account upthread - an important aspect of action resolution is for the GM to project the behaviour of the situation based on his/her knowledge of where it is now, what NPCs are thinking, etc etc. My approach - as exemplified in the examples upthread - is at key points to allow the players to state their goals for a situation, and to then have that resolve mechanically (eg via skill challenge mechanics). The sort of extrapolation that ExploderWizard talks about becomes a device for setting parameters of plausibility/permissibility on a scene, rather than for determining exactly what happens within it.Here are some quotes from another RPG forum that have influenced my approach, and that have helped me to articulate it:From <a href="http://" target="_blank">Paul Czege</a>:I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . . 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). . . [A]lthough 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. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. . . 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. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. 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.From <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=20791.0" target="_blank">Ron Edwards</a>:If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . . It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[imaginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time.Once we're clear on the basic approach, we can then ask what sorts of tools are needed to help support it. At a minimum, it needs:*PC build rules that will produce PCs that are ripe to engage in exciting situations; *Players who are enthused to play those PCs; *Encounter design guidelines that will facilitate the GM in building such situations, and quickly if necessary (because scene resolution is not pre-determined); *Action resolution rules that will (i) bring out what is exciting about those situations, and (ii) bring them to a resolution in a way that seeds future situations that will engage the PCs, and (iii) affirms rather than suppresses player enthusiasm.These are different tools from the tools needed to support classic D&D sandboxing (for example, world building is not part of them - whereas world building is fairly central to classic sandboxing).We can then look at what features of what systems possess those tools, or the tools that would support other approaches.From my point of view, it's not about whether my sandbox is bigger or smaller than your sandbox - as I've said, I don't even have a sandbox! It's about talking sensibly about a diversity of tools to support a diversity of playstyles.</blockquote>

Verification