Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7052783" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. In the post to which you replied, I said that "sole-authored fiction, the author deliberately introduces failures and successes as part of the modulation of the pacing of the story". But a RPG, at least as I prefer to play it, is not sole-authored fiction. There are multiple participants (GM, players) performing different roles, and the emergence of drama is a function of the interaction of those roles.I'm not sure what you mean by "thing", here.In the scenario I described in the OP, it's not uncertain, once the PC has the blood in the vessel, whether or not the blood stays there. That is to say, success is binding as far as the fiction is concerned, until the player declares some other action, itself of significance, that puts that success at stake. Thus, carrying the blood downstairs in the chamberpot does not require a roll. Nothing new is at stake - having the blood be downstairs rather than upstairs does not have any dramatic significance - and the player has already established the PC's success in obtaining the blood. But when a player declares an action that does put something of significance at stake, then I don't see that rolling causes a lack of drama. Eg, as happened in my session, carrying the vessels of blood through the town while one's companion is lugging two bodies, one decapitated, can put the original success at stake. The player has declared some new action of dramatic significance - getting the blood from A (the tower) to B (somewhere where the character can take the next step in respect of it) - and so the dice come out again. (There are complexities here arising from party play. Eg who rolls the dice when two PCs are moving through town, only one is lugging bodies, but the two PCs are resolved to stick together. I'm eliding that complexity for the moment.)I'm not at all clear what sort of example you have in mind where rolling does not cause drama. And as far as the idea that "wondering if the die is going to screw me or not", that sounds like an issue with GMing. (Which goes back to the idea of GM judgement calls.) Eg if the GM calls for a die roll when you walk down the stairs with the blood, then the GM is not following "say 'yes' or roll the dice", because s/he is calling for a roll even when nothing of stake is at issue. (As I've said, it makes no difference whether the blood is in a chamber pot upstairs or a chamber pot downstairs. Of course if that did make a difference - if the summoning cirle was downstairs, and so getting the blood down to the circle was crucial, then calling for a roll might be quite appropriate, but equally it would be quite dramatic.)The idea of being "screwed" by the dice also suggests the GM may need to work more on narrating consequences of failure. Your distinction between "scene framing" and "principled GMing" is intriguing to me, because it's not one I would readily have drawn myself.My first response is that what is going on is somewhat orthogonal. After all, when GMing Burning Wheel (as in the OP), I'm certainly not a neutral participant. And everything you say about constraint by principles, playing hard, etc seems apt. I haven't got a lot of Dungeon World experience (the only PbtA game I've played), but those aspects of it didn't strike me as different from BW.MHRP, on the other hand, does seem rather different from BW, and probably closer (as I experience it) to some of the features you highlight in your "scene framing" description - resolving the "short, punchy scenario" by way of the rules. So maybe rather than doubting your categorisation I'm doubting your location of BW in one category rather than the other. (I would think of 4e as being more like MHRP in combat, and more like BW/PbtA in skill challenges.)Anyway, building on those preliminary reflections - which as you can tell are somewhat half-formed - here is my best attempt to explain my intuition of orthogonality: scene-framing seems mostly an idea/technique around the relationshp between backstory, player protagonism and the inducing of checks; whereas principle GMing seems most importantly about the resolution of checks and narration of consequences. So when the PCs race against the assassin to stop the unconcsious wizard in the tower being assassinated, that's "scene-framing" (no failure off-screen; going to where the action is); when the question of who gets to the unconscious wizard first is resolved by opposed checks, when the presence of a vessel is resolved by a Perception check, when a failed check results in the PCs escaping across the city with blood and bodies encountering the night watch, that's "principle GMing" (let it ride; say 'yes' or roll the dice; fail forward).And <a href="https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">here's a passage on the "standard narrativistic model"</a> that has shaped my thinking a fair bit: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 in certain terms what the character thinks and wants. . . . Once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes [eg in BW character burning, estabishing believes etc; in MHRP establishing distinctions and milestones as well as powers, etc], the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . The GM describes a 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, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end. . . . The GM . . . needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences).This description seems to run together aspects of "scene framing" (framing interesting situations, ie mini-scenarios) with aspects of "principled GMing" (provoking choices by speaking to PCs' clearly established dramatic needs).None of the above is intended as an attack on your post (and I hope it's not one in spite of my intentions). I think it's an invitation to elaborate the contrast you see. One thing I'm thinking of is the idea of a clean break between scenes, but BW doesn't have that by default (I think MHRP does, and probably 4e moreso than BW), and that doesn't seem to go as "deep" as the sort of distinction I take you to be making.</blockquote>

Verification