Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6382117" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at.The players had built thief PCs. It was clear that they wanted to play a game of thiefly hijinks - partly because that's the reason for building thieves, partly because of the actions they declared for their PCs, which involved sneaking through the Keep doing sneaky stuff.I can't remember the details because it's around 25 years ago, but the most interesting element in the Keep itself is the evil priest. So I drew on that. As they explored the cult, I elaborated the details.The nearby town was Critwall on the World of Greyhawk maps - I had placed the Keep in the Shield Lands, which seemed (and still seems) sensible enough. The cult elements in the town I made up as the players followed leads and further explored the nature of the cult. (Again, details are hazy but I think the wife of the mayor of Critwall was one of the more significant cult members.)Anyway, that's a bit more detail - but where are you asking me to go with it?This is a metaphor. I don't really understand it.If "the door" is "the ability to choose how to respond to the situations they confront" then the door is open.If "the door" is "the ability to frame their own contests" then the door is shut - GM authority over scene-framing is pretty central to indie-style play, which is why it is not the same as sandbox play.But it is also important to distinguish authority and more general issues of authorship. Another central feature of indie-style play is that the GM frames scenes that deploy material that the players have authored, either directly via PC backstory, or indirectly and collaboratively via past action resolution.So, for instance, the reason for framing further scenes involving the cult is because the players indicate that their PCs are going hunting for cult members.In fact, in the traditional D&D adventure, the GM writes the adventure before the players have even designed their PCs.And in an adventure path the whole thing is authored in advance of PC-creation and play.When I talk about framing in response to hooks provided by the players, I'm talking about the GM following the players' lead in framing scenes and providing opposition.Here is one simple way to tell the difference: if your campaign has "sidequests" then it is not player-driven in the sense I am describing, because the existence of "sidequests" presupposes the existence of a main, GM-driven, quest.In a game run indie-style there is no conceptual scope for sidequests because the whole game is nothing but player-driven "sidequests".Where is the railroad? How can a game be a railroad if there is no pre-authorship of the backstory, the opponents, the situations, the conflicts, the outcomes?Perhaps I've misunderstood, but you seem to be describing, here, techniques for railroading the players, by encouraging them to go along with the GM's desired course of action.I don't want to encourage players to "progress the story". Or rather, I don't need to: if the players have well-built PCs, and I frame situations that speak to those PCs (and thereby to the players), then the players will declare actions for their PCs and "story" will follow. That story will shape and reshape the PCs, suggesting new situations, etc etc, in a virtuous circle from which the campaign emerges. [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] first pointed me to this <a href="http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">blog post</a> which states the basic technique (but I discovered the technique, haltingly and via my own trial and error, twenty-something years before the blog was written):One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications . . . The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. . . . [T]hey naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know . . . what the character thinks and wants. . . [O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation . . . that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices . . .If the game slows down then either the players haven't been clear enough on what their PCs think and want, or (more likely) I haven't framed an interesting enough situation. Luckily these problems are easily dealt with in the course of actual play - the players can bring out (either via table talk or via roleplay) what it is their PCs think and want, and/or I can inject more material into the situation (eg cultist assassins turn up and confront the PCs!).</blockquote>

Verification