Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8355191" data-attributes="member: 42582">The two bits I've bolded are why I have focused on "plot-moments" ie particular moments, in play, when a revelation or development occurs. By focusing on those moments, as discrete events at the table, we both sidestep the issue of "overarching direction" and also can home in on who authored which.I'll illustrate that last point by referring to the actual play example in the OP:* Evard's tower burns to the ground and collapses. This is largely GM-authored. The presence of Evard's Tower in the ficiton at all, and the fact that the PCs are there, is player-authored. But the destruction of the tower is GM-authored, narrating the consequences of various failed checks.* There are a number of moments which are co-authored but involve the player taking control of authorship from the GM - so the process of authorship at the table has a trajectory that corresponds to the dramatic trajectory of events. (Vincent Baker calls attention to a similar sort of correlation of trajectories in his example-of-play in the Apocalypse World rulebook. I think the correlation is even clearer in these BW examples because of some system differences that I'm happy to elaborate on if you like.) Examples of this include the skeleton knight in the crypt, the teleportation circle, and the debate with the Elf captain. In the first two, the GM has framed a situation and as it has unfolded has fed in more and more content. But the sequence of player action declarations has meant that what is actually at stake, and how it ends up, reflects player contributions and priorities in respect of revelation and development. With the teleportation circle, it's interesting that that is the case even though the final check in that scene is a failure; because the GM has narrated that failure not by introducing more content, but simply by letting me (the player) turn to engage other established elements of the framing (ie the rest of the stuff in the tower basement). The elf example is a bit different again, because the GM introduces basically all his content up front: there's an Elf captain who has lead his band to rout the Orcs, and he was part of a broader dynamic in the scene where the GM was clearly generating pressure for the PCs to pursue the Orcs. But by starting the Duel of Wits I was able to change the whole context and meaning of the scene, which became about whether or not the Elf captain will support Thurgon's agenda of restoring Auxol to past glory. Even though I (the player) failed my checks, the scene ended up being about that - and the Elf captain's refusal to help - rather than about what the GM was interested in (ie the PCs pursuing Orcs).* There are moments which are basically sole-authored by the player, with the GM's job being to inject appropriate content and consequences to honour the player-driven framing and action resolution. Examples include the debate between Thurgon and Aramina about whether to head straight to the tower, the encounter with Rufus, and the encounter with Xanthippe. I also think the letters in the tower fall into this category, although this required probably the greatest degree of GM authorship to fill the interstices, as the two PCs' dramatic arcs - sorcerous towers and fallen families - had to be woven together, and its the GM who has the capacity to do that.The Empire Strikes Back example is hard to analyse in the abstract - if we imagine it in a RPG, is it a response to a failed check (say, to cow Vader) or a successful one (say, to prompt Vader to reveal the truth)? Either is conceivable if all we have is the narrative of in-fiction events, but at the table these would be different things. They would also be relevant to whether Vader's pronouncement establishes a truth about what Vader believes or what Vader wants Luke to believe or (as things turn out) what is actually the case.On the more general point, I think that you (Umbran) correctly identify one key GM function in RPGing: to adduce the content. But that isn't the same as the GM authoring that content, or authoring its development. When Thurgon returns to Auxol and meet Xanthippe, it is the GM's job to frame things - which he does, by having her appear frail, and chiding Thurgon for his absence. But as a player I (i) seize control of the momentum, by declaring the prayer before we get into a Duel of Wits, and (ii) I succeed on my check and hence get the resolution I was hoping for.Had the check failed, then I don't know what the GM would have done, but he would have had to narrate some unhappy consequence; and it seems pretty certain to me that, if things had turned out that way, the reunion with Xanthippe would not have been a solely player-authored plot-moment.I think this drives home the centrality of action resolution, at least for "story"-oriented RPGing. If action resolution has "teeth" both on success and on failure, then it become an effective tool for distributing authorship. And it means the stakes of rolling the dice are high, because no one knows, until they land, whose conception of what happens next will come to pass!I also think it shows that your concern, about the emotional force of player-authored plot-moments, can be easily overstated. If the player is asked to narrate the resolution in advance, I fully agree. That's lame. But if the player is asked to stake the resolution on the dice, then I think it is no different from the classic D&D saving throw roles, except generalising across a wider range of dramatic possibilities than just averting sudden death.</blockquote>

Verification