That may well be true! I'm not going to gainsay someone else's estimation of his/her abilities. I'm just wary of generalisation from one's own case across the whole of RPG-dom.
Exactly, in reverse. There seems to (at times - and not necessarily you) be the sense that some think all GMs should do certain things. My general point is that there is almost nothing that every GM should do. Even railroading is a useful technique if the players are looking for a specific general outcome of the campaign, such as playing known characters in a known story line (LotR, Star Wars, etc.).
A good DM is able to hide those rails even then. And really, I think that's ultimately the answer to railroading, illusionism, etc. If, for whatever reason, the DM feels they must use a technique that is altering the players agency of their characters (I think that's described as Force on the Forge), the goal is to do it in a manner the the players can't tell and don't know about it.
This is a bit different if the players come to the table and say "we don't accept illusionism as a technique" for example. Although in many cases I think that players that object to specific techniques "in theory" are really objecting to poor use of the techniques in reality.
I count myself in that group, because there are things, like "Eero's standard narrativistic model" that I initially objected to, and I find that in reality I agree 100% with it at times, and probably 80% of it the rest of the time (I'll get into that in a moment). I think my initial knee-jerk reaction is the use of the word "standard" which implies it's part of every game.
I think this may relate to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s comments about "GM steering".
In what way do you see (d) and (e) as instructing the GM to drive the story?
As I see it, (d) instructs the GM to "go where the action is" - it's another statement of the framing role of the GM, whereby the GM has to frame scenes that speak to theme/premise and thereby provoke choices by the players for their PCs.
If we think about [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example of the PC's brother's hat in the brothel, that is the GM "keep[ing] play driven towards conflict". It's the player, not the GM, who chose to make the brother a significant element in play; and it is the player who will make the choices that determine the outcomes.
(e) is another instruction about framing, and the use of consequences from previous situations to inform new situations. Those consequences will be the result of player action declarations, which in turn were made in response to framings that spoke to the thematic concerns established by the players. So I'm not seeing how it is "GM driven". Are you able to articulate what you mean by "GM driven"?
So this is where I go from the 100% to the 80%. I guess you can say that I'm approaching the discussion in part as a DM of D&D, because ultimately that's what I really know. Despite having run games in the past for other systems, I can't really claim to have achieved a high enough skill level in them to call myself a Rolemaster/MERP GM, or Traveller, Paranoia, whatever.
Having said that, I do think I have enough knowledge of other systems to look at it from a more objective position, although not completely (or maybe 100% accurately) since I don't know all systems as well.
So (d) and (e) might be 100% correct for a story now game (and from what I understand, they
are fairly standard). However, if when running/playing your game of choice that you wish to have a different play experience than a narrative/story now game, these are implying that the DM take greater control of the story than I normally like:
d) Don't have plot points in mind beforehand..."don't play the story". Just play The Town. Present the PC's with choices; "
provoke the players to have their characters take action then...react (with your NPCs/The Town)!"
Always do this to keep play driven toward conflict, over and over, escalating as necessary, until all conflict in The Town is resolved. (DitV 137-139)
e) Reflect between Towns with the players. Use what they've gained, lost, and given you to "
push them a little bit further in the next Town."
These are giving specific direction to drive the story arc itself. That every game ("always") must follow this direction. But there are times, or some of us, that are interested in telling other kinds of stories. They aren't always about conflict. If the instructions are for creating a tense and intense, ever-escalating conflict driving to a shocking and dramatic final resolution, fine. These are great instructions. But if they are instructions for how to run every RPG game, then no.
I get that they are written for a specific game that promises a specific game style. It's an example of how rules that are well integrated into the goal (and possibly setting) of the game helps create a repeatable game experience. That's a successful game. But let's say I'm not interested in that game. What can I learn from it? Quite a bit, but for a smaller portion of my game, because a smaller portion of my game needs these types of rules.
Also, many players that I've played with will object to the DM manipulating the story in this way. They want to be in full control of their players, including deciding themselves whether to escalate or de-escalate the conflict.
The Perception check did determine if the PC noticed that something is there. Of course, a necessary condition of noticing that something is there is that it be there.
So from the fact that the PC notices it - which is established by the Perception check - we can infer that it is there.
This is certainly not opposed to the design of Perception and other knowledge checks in this system.
Which I believe I mentioned - that depending on the game system it's allowable. I also gave an example (in regards to the scavenging check) that showed in D&D it would have been a slightly different set of checks to achieve the same fictional result.
I'll come at it from a slightly different perspective in regards to secret doors. For those who object to the idea that a successful search check can determine the actual existence of a secret door (So from the fact that the PC notices it - which is established by the Perception check - we can infer that it is there.) - This is only possible if the GM allows it. In other words, the GM has agreed that a secret door is possible in that particular location.
Before you respond, let me address that from a slightly different angle (I'm trying to see if my interpretation is accurate): In a story now campaign, if I (as a player) decided to search for secret doors on every single turn, would it be allowed, and if so, would I find a secret door every time I was successful in my search?
By "playing to find out" I mean something quite different from [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. The slogan comes - I believe - from Apocalypse World/PtbA games. I contrast it with RPGing where "secret backstory" matters to resolution - because in the latter case the GM is not playing to find out: s/he already knows.
And I don't undertand why you disagree with my reference to the players finding out what is in the GM's notes. If (to quote you) the only one who can provide those answers is the DM, then that precisely seems to be the players finding out what is in the GM's notes.
OK, so that makes some more sense, and is also another great example of a poor use of terms for a game rule, when there isn't a standard definition to all gamers what "playing to find out means."
Ironically, I already answered your question in the prior post. Just because I might have had an idea, and even gone so far to write it down, doesn't mean it's right. I, as the DM, and "playing to find out" if it's true. Call it a theory, like in a mystery. Am I right? I'm not ready to declare who did it, where they did it, and with what. I could be wrong.
The game, the story, and the players will all determine that. So for me it's about as far from the players trying to find out what's in the DM's notes. They are tools, helpful to me, and it might be that when push comes to shove, the answer is the exact opposite of what I've written down.
There are undoubtedly lots of DMs that play the notes as the rule. Especially with a published adventure, what's written is what is. No, I use the notes as ideas, fodder for feeding my improvisation, etc. because I'm the sort of guy that thinks of the perfect joke 10 minutes after the opportunity. If I don't give my brain lots of concrete ideas ahead of time, it's often blank or providing the most predictable and boring options in time.
Do I use my notes as written? Sure, a lot of times they just fit. But most of them are just a sentence, maybe two. Or they are something along the lines of, "maybe this, or that, or that," and there is no concrete note to start with.
So yes, the DM is the only one that can provide the answers. But that doesn't mean the answers come from the notes.
The vessel example is a (small) instance of "playing to find out" and the contrast with the players learning what is in the GM's notes: I did not have pre-written notes, nor create some notes on the spot by rolling on a "random stuff in a wizard's chamber" table. It was the resolution of the player's action declaration ("I look for a vessel to catch the spilling blood!") that determined that particular aspect of the fiction. That is an example of what I mean by "playing to find out". And that method can be generalised beyond vessels in wizardly chambers to other things (eg Why did a balrog possess my brother? Is the Dusk War upon us? Why is my brother's hat hanging in the foyer of this brothel? What is the attitude of this elven captain to the human nobility? etc).
Yep. Exactly what I would have described is that the players always think of stuff I don't, and often (usually) have more interesting ideas than I do. It's part of improvisation - notes are one input, the character's actions are another, the players questions and comments another, what's in my head at the moment (I might have just watched a movie, read a book, noticed something on the news, etc.). There are many, many inputs, including from the characters. And as the DM I field those and decide what's appropriate, what's not, and if there is something that is not clear we'll roll a die. In your example with the vessel, the player made a good point, that there probably would be some sort of vessel there, so I would have just gone with it.
And I think that's part of the sense I get from the "standard narrativistic model" and what I've commented about - the model seems to limit the options of the DM. What you seem to be saying is that in those games that I
shouldn't be using notes (or things I've thought of before hand). For me, and my players, that would make for a boring game. I need those ideas as seeds. but I may use none of them in the course of a game. It just gets my brain working.
That's the difference between what Ron Edwards calls "exploring setting and situation" and what he calls "narrativism"/"story now" and Eero Tuovinen calls "the standard narrativistic model".
Two things.
(1) Non-4e D&D actually will give you some push-back if you try to run it "story now". One example I pointed to a few posts upthread is the fact that spells, including information-gathering spells, tend to grant players automatic successes. Hence they aren't able to be adjudicated by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Which means they don't support the sort of setting-of-stakes and adjudication-of-outcomes that is important to "story now" play.
I tend to rewrite any rule that gives automatic success. Yes, I have baselines (passive skill scores) that mean you'll automatically succeed at something that's easy for you, barring the impact of circumstances. But divination spells (which rarely come up in my games), don't. Although bear in mind that it's rare for any characters (yes, even after 9-year-long runs) rarely get above 7th or 8th level. So I'm usually only dealing with 4th level and lower spells.
But, I don't usually have specific answers, unless it's something simple like when they are in a dungeon and I know what creatures/traps/treasures lie in two different directions. Those are times where the notes are more specific (although potentially still malleable). Otherwise I give it my best shot, and use, gasp!, railroading, fudging, or Illusionism techiques (although usually more in regard to the back-end) if needed.
The fudging one is a great example, though, because if the divination says that they will succeed at something, I can essentially give them advantage, or some other bonus (fudge) if needed. That doesn't mean that it's all they hoped for - the Powers usually think in terms of what you need, not what you want. And your definition of success doesn't always answer theirs...
But I'm curious, in a world where such divination spells exist, how would you handle it in a story now/narrative model?
(2) I feel that some your remarks - in this and earlier posts - are projecting some conception of "story now" that doesn't fit with the reality of these games.
Eg they are not generally "mission based". There is no reason why campaigns can't be lengthy - BW is designed for play over tens of sessions, although MHRP is designed for shorter sequences of play. And the "action" can be anything from gunfights to cooking. My BW PC has Cooking skill, and I'm expecting that to matter. And as I posted upthread, I'm expecting the next session to begin with me trying to persuade my wizard companion to mend the dent in my armour.
D&D doesn't really have the mechanics to make these rather prosaic matters a significant part of the game, but BW does.
I feel you are probably correct, in that I don't know the games well enough.
But when I was talking about "mission based" I was referring more to the framing aspect. In a James Bond movie, every scene is related to the mission or that specific story. The last three (and
On Her Majesty's Secret Service) explored his private thoughts and life a bit more. But for the most part, it's all about the mission. Hard cuts (framing) between one scene and the next. Firefly and Star Trek are also similar, in that each story is contained by the framing inherent in the setting. The focus is very tight. The setting on the ship is well defined and well known, and stories within it usually focus on the interactions of the characters themselves. Occasionally others come on board, but more often than not the action and story takes place on a new planet with a new challenge or conflict. Star Wars mixes it up a bit with more ship-to-ship battles, for example (although they happen in Star Trek too).
I don't think most Story Now games are mission based, but I think they take a lot of their narrativistic model from those types of movies and shows. Whereas something like LotR and even
Game of Thrones, features a lot of in-between stuff, exploring the characters themselves within the world and the setting. Shows like them often explore the setting itself to a greater degree. Star Wars is another good example as being a bit of a hybrid - it expands the setting a lot (by virtue of so many stories that have been presented) but they tend to be very one dimensional. A desert planet, a forest planet, a city planet, a wookie planet, etc.)
Marvel movies tend to ignore setting to a large degree. Yes it's sort of current day Earth, but more exaggerated. But the stories care little about exploring the setting.
When I consider lengthy, I'm thinking Ed Greenwood's (and my) ongoing Forgotten Realms campaigns, for example. Where the same setting has persisted for 30 years now, and all of the adventures and characters that have taken place in my campaign are part of the setting now. The difference you're describing in length between BW and MHRP sound closer to the difference between a D&D AP and (older style) adventure.
There isn't really a defined definition of "Campaign" although I admit I didn't look at the Forge first. But I see them as isolated adventures and stories tied together by setting and characters. I don't think BW is designed for that sort of approach, where the same characters complete a story over your tens of sessions, then continue another story while retaining the setting elements that have now been defined in the prior game. I could be wrong.
The "action" may be anything, but the rules (especially the specific subset in this discussion) are driving toward conflict. I don't think they are considering burning the garlic conflict.
I think D&D has had different attempts over the years to address such mundane aspects of life such as those to be codified in rules. In many cases I feel that they don't need to be fixed within the rules, but I agree they should be a focus of the game. But that's the way I like to play the game, it's those personal skills, traits, and such that make the person more of a character than a bunch of numbers on a sheet. In the last campaign, one character particularly liked his sleep. And it was a part of the game on a pretty regular basis. I didn't need a rule for that, it's just a question of role-playing the personality of the character. We encourage that sort of play, but it's not reinforced by a rule.
Just because somebody is a good cook, doesn't mean it's going to be part of the game. Like I probably won't introduce a scene where they have to prepare a meal for the king, although if the opportunity does arise for them to use it to serve NPCs, great. On the other hand, the rest of the party will rather quickly insist that amongst their supplies there are sufficient resources for the gourmet to ply their craft. Giving them time to visit the market to purchase spices, complaining about the poor food when they can't prepare it, etc. NPCs that do join them on the road will also remember their cooking skills, and it becomes part of the campaign naturally, without having to force it with rules. If the cook is the best fighter in the group, and they happen to be separated for a while, it's probably more likely that they'll be greeted back with a comment about how they'll have something decent to eat now, rather than anything about their fighting ability. They can survive a battle without his sword, but have to suffer daily with bad food without him.
The 5e ideals/traits/bonds/flaws system addresses this kind of thinking to a small degree.
As far as convincing the wizard to mend the armor? Why do you need to persuade them? Part of our nightly routine includes minor repairs to armor (that can be made in the field), sharpening swords, etc. It's only natural that in a world where you are using weapons and armor of these types that they need to be cared for. If it's more than they can do themselves, and one of the spellcasters can do it, then it's a question of whether mending the armor or that the spellcasting is better used (or saved) elsewhere. It could even be that one of the other characters is a smith and capable of more substantial repairs, it wouldn't have to be a spellcaster. They might say no, for a variety of reasons, but I don't see the need for a skill check.
To me that's also part of good game design. You don't need to codify every action with a mechanical rule. Having said that, I like to support the in-world action with the rules. I adopted the 5e version of armor/weapon damage: -1 to hit or AC each time it's damaged, and it's destroyed at -5, although some are more or less. For example, orcish weapons and armor are typically destroyed at -4. I haven't picked the threshold yet, but once it's damaged beyond probably -2, then it's too damaged to be mended by in-field repairs (or the
mending cantrip). But it might be that only "-1" damage can be repaired by the
mending cantrip.