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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7097868" data-attributes="member: 6778044">If there is a secret door, what other options are there but to find it or not?So I'm reading Eero's Standard Narrativistic Model (<a href="https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/</a>) and he seems to specifically be promoting a GM-driven game:"These games are tremendously fun, and they form a very discrete family of games wherein many techniques are interchangeable between the games. The most important common trait these games share is the GM authority over backstory and dramatic coordination (I talk of these two extensively in Solar System, which is also a game of this ilk), which powers the GM uses to put the player characters into pertinent choice situations. Can you see how this underlying fundamental structure is undermined by undiscretionary use of narrative sharing?"His specific point, supported by all of the analysis before the outline of his structure, is that in order to have a "Story Now" game, the GM must have control over the story. His further elaboration seems to specifically support the sort of game I like to run:"The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook. And it works, but only as long as you do not require the player to take part in determining the backstory and moments of choice. If the player character is engaged in a deadly duel with the evil villain of the story, you do not ask the player to determine whether it would be “cool” if the villain were revealed to be the player character’s father. The correct heuristic is to throw out the claim of fatherhood if it seems like a challenging revelation for the character, not ask the player whether he’s OK with it – asking him is the same as telling him to stop considering the scene in terms of what his character wants and requiring him to take an objective stance on what is “best for the story”. Consensus is a poor tool in driving excitement, a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters."That the "holy grail of RPG design" is that the player's viewpoint is that the entire game is based around "nothing by choices made in playing his character."By this measure, that the player is always in character, and making decisions as that character, then the methods the DM uses to present the world, events, encounters, etc. are irrelevant. I see it as going to a movie - I don't really care what technology, what cameras or techniques, or how many scriptwriters there were, etc. The finished product is what matters. Yes, after the movie (or after the game) I love to dig and see if we can figure out what makes it such a great experience. And while I understand how certain players object to things like illusionism, fudging, or many other techniques, my assertion is that is has far more to do with how the DM handled (or mishandled) those tools than the tools themselves. But without even going into the more controversial tools, I think Eero's Model has some contradictions. If one of the roles is to:"frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications."Then how can the story be "nothing by choices made by playing (the) character?" As soon as the DM fades to black at the end of one framed scene, then fades up on the next scene, you've removed a big chunk of player decisions from the game. Sure, it might make for a great story, but it's now the DM's story, not the PC's.Where I think this theory is wrong is in not allowing the player to determine the "moments of choice." I totally agree that you should not "ask the player to determine whether it would be “cool” if the villain were revealed to be the player character’s father." And if all he's talking about is deciding as the DM when to reveal information like this, then I'm fine with it.It's really his procedural description that I have some issue with, particularly the bolded selection:"The actual procedure of play is very simple: once 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 in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). 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."His holy grail is that the players can make decisions entirely as the characters (which I agree 100% with), but then takes away some of that ability to make decisions by instructing the DM to frame the scenes, and implying that the only scenes that should remain are those that is "interesting" in "relation to the premise of the setting or character."But the only people that should be deciding whether it's interesting or not is the players. While my description of the private detective was, in part, to show how the framing can lead the action (instead of "going to the action"), it also removed many opportunities for the character to do something different. In my example he still ended up at the grocery store to pick up a few things for his wife. But in the game play he may have opted to do something else altogether, specifically because he decided something was important, even if the DM didn't think so.I can't tell you how many games I've seen where a DM was running a published or pre-planned adventure, and the DM had put something of great importance in front of the PCs, only for them to completely ignore it and go someplace else entirely. Many years ago I figured out that the stories were much more interesting (and "authentic") if they were driven by the PCs and not me, the DM. That's why I focus on the backstory and setting, all the things that are happening around the PCs, and let them decide what's important.I get it, we have a lot less time to play than we used to. So the idea of skipping ahead (which we still do, in agreement rather than DM decision), is tempting. Because you think you're spending time on something that's not important and boring. But most of the time we find that if we just stick with it, there is plenty of interesting things that happen that greatly enrich the game, and wouldn't have happened if we skipped ahead. So there are two aspects to what I see as framing a scene. Yes - the description of the situation, what's there and where, is technically framing the scene. My objection is with the technique where the game is separated into distinct scenes where the DM decides when one scene ends and when (and where) the next one begins.The only place where I think Eero misses is that the players should be in control of the story. The DM is in control of the world and everything except the PCs within it. In some cases this includes story (Vader is your father). But in most cases, the story is in control of the players and is a direct result of the choices they make in character.</blockquote>

Verification