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: 7098287" data-attributes="member: 42582">No it's not. As you've quoted, he talks about GM authority over backstory and dramatic coordination. This is not control over story.The same sort of GM authority is described by Luke Crane in the BW rulebooks that I quoted upthread:The "power to being and end scenes, to present challenges and instigate conflicts", and "to hold off one action" is what Eero Tuovinen calls dramatic coordination. The GM's knowledge of "the big picture" is what Eero Tuovinen calls authority over backstory.Burning Wheel is an instance of the "standard narrativistic model" - and neither Luke Crane nor Eero Tuovinen is talking about GM control over the story. "Story" (or "plot") is the upshot of actual play, in which players make choices for their PCs in response to the situations framed by the GM. Here is Luke Crane's account of it (from the GM side):And here is <a href="https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">Eero Tuovinen's (more technically elaborated) account</a> of the same process: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 (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications. . . . 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.I've bolded some key passages - the players establish the concrete characters, and hence the dramatic needs. The GM "goes where the action is" ie frames scenes that are interesting in relation to those dramatic needs, that have been established by the players. The players then make choices, which have consequences - and those consequences (and their interaction with dramatic needs) provide the context for further framing. This is why I call it "player-driven": it is the players who establish the focus of play, and whose choices for their PCs drive play.The sort of thing he is talking about is defeated by the GM's use of secret backstory to determine consequences of action declarations. Because at that point it is no longer a case of the GM "going where the action is" ie framing and narrating in response to dramatic need as established by the players in the build and play of their PCs.The method that the GM uses to present the world, events, etc is absolutely central. Here are the key passages again, with some highlighting: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 (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications. . . . 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. 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 is what makes it story now. The aspiration is that every moment of play is a story, in the sense that something is happening that matters to the dramatic needs of these characters; and that this is achieved by the players playing the characters they have built and the GM framing scenes and adjudicating action declarations[ made by the players for their PCs. If the GM is framing scenes (eg moments of haggling, or marauding wolves) that don't speak to anyone character's dramatic needs, then we don't have story now. If the GM is adjudicating results not by reference to action declarations that express dramatic need, but rather by reference to secret backstory, then we don't have story now.Well, I can report that there is no contradiction, as I (and many others) run games in this fashion.You have misquoted Eero Tuovinen. He doesn't say that "the story is nothing but choices made by playing the character". He says that "from the player’s viewpoint . . . he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character." That is, the player doesn't have to make any effort to create a story other than by playing his/her PC.And the GM doesn't have to make any effort to create a story other than by framing the PCs into scenes that speak to dramatic need. (Eg the GM doesn't need a whole lot of notes such as one might find in a typical "event-driven" module.)The story emerges from the sequence of situation -> choices -> action declarations -> consequences -> new situation -> etc. What is crucial to this is that the situation, at each point, speaks to dramatic need as established by build and play of the PCs.It is therefore the exact opposite of most event-driven modules that I am familiar with, which are replete with devices (like back-up clues, back-up BBEGs, etc) all intended to ensure that whatever the outcomes of action declarations, nothing will change and the situation will remain constant.I'm not sure what you think the force of the should is. And I'm not sure what method you have in mind either.In the "standard narrativistic model", the "players [establish] concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes". As part of this, the players inform the GM what the dramatic needs of the PCs are. The GM is then obliged to frame a scene that speaks to this.Luke Crane describes the same thing in these terms in the BW rulebooks:The players offer hooks; the GM uses those hooks to frame scenes.If the players, in fact, find the situation the GM frames unengaging (which can happen - humanity is frail, after all) then Luke Crane has the following advice:But the player, in creating those interesting situations, is nevertheless going to have to work with what the GM has provided, because games run on this model do not require, nor empower, the player to take part in determining the backstory and moments of choice. The player cannot frame his/her own challenge (that's the Czege Principle being applied).This is the exact opposite of the "standard narrativistic model". This is the sort of railroading play that the model is a reaction against.There is no pre-planning of the sort you describe here in the "standard narrativistic model". Because all subsequent framing depends on prior consequences, and hence on prior choices plus the process of resolution. And so can't be known in advance.This is why Tuovinen stresses that an important GM skill is to "figure out consequences". Whereas the whole point of the sort of published adventure you describe is to make consequences irrelevant because everything has been worked out in advance.No one is in control of the story. It emerges from the process of situation -> choices -> action declarations -> consequences -> new situation -> etc - until, as he says, "all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end". It is the players who decide what those outstanding issues are. This is why I describe this sort of RPGing as "player-driven".</blockquote>

Verification