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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 7070638" data-attributes="member: 16586">I do not know how we can meaningfully analyze play without taking a critical look at what's actually happening between the very real people sitting around a very real table having an actual conversation. Part of that includes their motives. That also includes the unspoken cultural expectations that inform play. Is the player trying to get something in particular done, perhaps building some relationships with the locals they can use later? Are they trying to get the lay of the land? Are they just trying to make a statement about their character? Are they giving the GM an opportunity to share some of their world building? Are they biting a plot hook? Looking for general opportunities to exercise some protagonism? What sort of response are they expecting from the GM? This sort of stuff absolutely impacts play.My general approach to this sort of thing will depend on the game and how I am running it. Generally, I think all sorts of fiction can be interesting and if a player is showing interest in something I will try to follow their lead and see if we can get some of the other players involved. I generally leave that up to the players though. This is where asking questions and building on the answers can be extremely helpful to get us from a general idea to some meaningful fiction with consequence that we can explore and play in.I do not generally make the same distinctions that    [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does between mere color, framing, and action declaration. My focus is on player decision making and how we can make it consequential. This is part of the reason why I make the distinction between Scene Framing and GM as MC. Generally speaking a GM who primarily frames scenes is going to be asking themselves questions like -<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Where's the conflict?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What's the intent?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What's at stake?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What's the possible fallout of the conflict?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What sort of conflicts can this lead to?</li> </ul>Generally speaking, a Master of Ceremonies (MC) is going to be asking themselves questions like -<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Where's the interest?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What's the fiction like?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What can we find out about these characters?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What sort of opportunities and decisions does this present the players with?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What sort of fictions and decisions can those decisions lead to?</li> </ul>These subtle distinctions have powerful effects on play. Both are primarily concerned with keeping things in the fiction. Scene Framing or Conflict Resolution is biased towards higher stakes, action adventure, and keeping things tense in every moment of play. Player decisions are focused on immediate concerns almost exclusively. An MC is more interested in exploring things, teasing out the fiction, letting conflicts arise more organically through player decision making, following the players' characters around. There is more room for lateral decision making, altering strategies, gaining leverage, and the like.It is important to remember that the style of play Apocalypse World formalized organically grew out of games played in war gaming style. Games like Moldvay B/X, Traveler, Talislanta, and the like. It is entirely a cogent strategy in Apocalypse World for a player to make moves without like making moves by doing things like engaging in peaceful negotiations where the game mechanics do not apply. The GM still makes their moves, but is very concerned with following the fiction. One of the things that separates this style of play from scene framing is that players decide their own level of engagement. Part of the tension of play in Apocalypse World is if there will be a conflict at all. Conflicts don't even have to be resolved immediately. Ongoing conflicts are often a fixture of play. A Burning Wheel PC fights for what they believe in, and giving up on a belief is a transformative experience. What an Apocalypse World PC decides is worth fighting for tells you what they believe in and that can change on a whim.</blockquote>

Verification