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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7105982" data-attributes="member: 6785785">But the GM is free to change things on the fly, no matter what style of game is being played. This is my point. This element of play, while absolutely present in your Story Now approach, need not be absent from a more GM driven game. This "Secret Backstory" approach that you discuss....there is no reason that anything in the GM's note must be written in stone. Yes, some GM's may decide that is how things should be handled. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] certainly seems to lean that way, and based on his comments, I can understand why; he feels that it helps create a more fully realized and "realistic" world. However, I could be GMing in the same manner as him...with tons of notes and backstory already determined....and still be free to allow for changes to those details based on how the game plays out. So this Mutability of Backstory is a technique that MAY be applied in any game. It just seems baked in to the game style you prefer....but that does not mean it must be absent from other types of games. Essentially, it's up to the GM of any given game to use it or not. I don't think most GMs have the actual ending to their campaign in mind, no matter how GM driven it may be. It could be a pure railroad, and yet still the ultimate result will come down to the success or failure of the players.If knowing exactly how the game ends....not just the climax it builds to (the PCs hunt down Strahd in his castle), but how that climax is resolved (the PCs are defeated and slain by Strahd)....is a requirement of a "Secret Backstory" game, then I think there are very few such games. Yes, I understood what you meant. My "big bad" comment was just an example. As I just mentioned above, I think most games allow for the ultimate success or failure of the PCs to determine the outcome. So, in your example, I don't see the distinction you are making between the fiction and the table. Is the Dusk War upon us? It's either yes or no in the fiction. It's either yes or no at the table. The players have causal power to shape the fiction in your game (trying to make it so that the Dusk War is not dawning). Players going through the Curse of Strahd adventure also do (by achieving victory against the vampire). The degree of such causal power is likely greater in your game than in a group playing through a published adventure, but I don't think it's a case of one game allowing for such, and the other not allowing for it. Well you had made comments about nothing being established by the GM having preconceived ideas for NPCs or story ideas. So I was showing how such ideas do in fact establish elements of the game, and therefore matter. As I said, it's kind of a subtle distinction, but one that I think could certainly have a large impact on the game. The example was about the NPC villain turning out to be the PC's father, a la Darth Vader. It would seem your expectation for a Story Now approach to have such a revelation be determined by the PCs actions and how they are shaped by the player. That having the NPC claim fatherhood only establishes the claim and nothing more....but I think it certainly establishes the possibility. The player now has to accept or deny the claim, and then play will likely form around such effort. Now, based on your description, this is likely fine....I would expect such a question of parentage was based on the player declaring that as a point of interest for his character. But my point is that the GM's idea only was what brought the game to that point. Right up until the point where the NPC makes the claim, the fiction was shaping up for exactly that. The GM was steering things in that way. He was pushing a specific idea, forcing a certain conflict. The resolution of that conflict (th truth of the PC's parentage) may still be up in the air, but it was the GM's idea that shaped things up to that point. The fact that at the last minute, he could have decided to NOT have the NPC claim to be the father does not mean that the game was not shaped to allow for that to be the case. So, as I said a bit subtle of a point perhaps, but the GM's notion even though subject to change, had an impact on the fiction.I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be. I have described my style as using elements of both. I absolutely have "Secret Backstory" elements that the players are meant to be discovering at points throughout play; my campaign does have an overall theme and "central story", although there are many smaller stories that tie into that. I absolutely incorporate player ideas for their characters into the fiction, both ideas that they had at the start of the campaign, and ones they've come up with along the way. I have a rough outline in a very loose sense....a general idea of what will happen. This outline is always subject to change based on the actions of the PCs and how they handle different aspects of the story. The backstory is also subject to change based on how play takes shape....I mentioned earlier not being married to any idea so strongly that I would not be willing to change it. Very little, other than the most fundamental of story elements, is written in stone.  I take a very sandbox approach to play....the players have goals in mind for their characters, and I have some story ideas....and I've made sure that many of these are in some sense of alignment. So my PCs' stories have ties to story ideas that I have. So at most points, the PCs are free to pursue their goals, and doing so will advance that story and also likely introduce new elements that they can pursue or not. Generally, I let the game go in the direction the players seem to want it to go. At times, this does mean that things become more linear....they set along a path of some sort, and then we play that through to its conclusion. I hesitate to describe these portions of the game as being "railroad" because during these linear times, the players are the ones deciding to take things in that way. They're driving straight despite there being intersections, rather than riding a train, to keep up with the analogy.This is what I've meant by player and GM alignment....yes, the players are going in ways that the GM wants them to go, but they're also going in the way they want to go. There's no conflict....no force....no railroading. That's not to say that I don't use GM Force or illusionism at times. I'm sure I have, and I'm sure I will again....but I prefer not to subvert consequence of player choice in that way unless I feel there is a strong reason. When it comes to the 5E mechanics....I'm very loose in application of the mechanics. I allow the players to decide how they use Inspiration. Yes, they can use it to gain advantage on a die roll...but that's the most basic usage. I also allow them to use inspiration to allow things not covered by the rules, or to allow them to introduce a story element to the game.....I really let them call the shots for Inspiration and abdicate each instance on the fly. Almost all the elements that you've described as positives of the Story Now style games you are advocating are also present in my game. They may not be ever-present, they may not be enforced by mechanics,but they're there. I don't treat them as necessary to the game's success....I don't have a specific goal like "play to find out" or anything like that, other than the general and all important goal of having fun....so I'm free to use these techniques or not as desired. I suppose I look at it as no group of techniques is going to always deliver a fun game, or the most fun that a game can deliver, so I don't adhere to any set techniques. I use any and all of them as the situation and the story call for, and set them aside when I feel they won't help deliver a fun game.</blockquote>

Verification