Players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play

[The-Magic-Sword]

No worries.

This is a very good conversation and I appreciate it.

If you can (you get the opportunity and you're interested), if you would just comment on the Follow Through/Make It Real principle because I'm confused on how you apply it in your Masks game based on some of your comments here (about your thoughts about the operationalizing the Dungeon World encounter and some other things you said in that 2nd paragraph I quoted - prompt for straight authorship of the fiction).

If you're interested in that conversation then great. I don't think its a good one just for you and I to have, I think its a good conversation for people wanting to play those types of games period so they understand precisely what you're supposed to be doing as a GM.

Threats in my Masks game are real in that they are threats, they attack Players, and they put people and property at risk with their action, sometimes off the cuff, and sometimes as specific villain moves where their tactics are codified e.g. 'take a bystander hostage' or 'trap a player in a prism of light'

This applies in an overarching sense too, one of the villains of the story is the mother of the player playing the Scion playbook (child of villain story archetype, basically) just used one of the party's members attempts to throw AEGIS under the bus, and a recent disaster they had been a part of, to introduce a paramilitary organization that does what AEGIS does to the public under her control, a private sector take over of policing the supers in the city. This was established when she showed up as a surprise guest in a tv interview one of the players had initiated to out AEGIS, one of her villain moves is basically 'your actions benefitted me all along!'

This has caused scenes in turn where Salvation forces have shown up to complicate other scenes throughout the city.

An example of this prompting straight fiction, from a real threat, was when villain Power Bang Bang went to go nuclear after they pissed her off, caused our Transformed 'Chimera' to establish that they could mess with their own physiology to make themselves bigger and 'tougher' (they had hence forth only established that they could effect minor changes.) so they could shield the group from harm, which led me to call for an 'Unleash your Powers' move, I then followed the agenda, and the results of the roll as giving me some control, of pushing the playbook narratives by having this mutate them into a large bipedal dragon like form they currently can't mutate back out of, which has led to their 'dealing with being a freak in every day life' stuff to pop up a lot more.

After the explosion decimated a neighborhood (and destroyed another character's house) the Star used their playbook move to put on an impressive display and cause someone to offer help, the result of the roll said the GM decides who shows up, so I had 'Ascendant' the godling like premier hero established in my own soldier's backstory questions show up, and make the star agree to do a collab with him in exchange for his help (basically, let Ascendant mentor them), once this was accepted, Ascendant curbstomped Power Band Bang.

From there, Chimera established the underground medical facility they were already sometimes attending, and told me what it was like and how it differed from the AEGIS facility they were supposed to be attending, they established what it was like, and I as GM decided the doctor was the 'The Architect' a mysterious figure interested in genetic modification.

The Star established that Ascendant had gotten popular through a series of vlogs where they bust petty crimes, and reacted to that fiction by deciding to do the same, this fiction was established after they wanted a reason for their character to go with the others who for various other reasons, using the Reformed's criminal buddies, were trying to set up a fake drug deal, can't remember why right now, but it was interaction to a situation they were already in.

I complicated this by having one of the Star's fellow band members be the client for the deal, and having Salvation show up at the same time, forcing them to confront the fact that their band has people who happen to be on the seedy side in it (established during character creation.) The threat there was either getting into a fight with Salvation, or condemning one of their band mates on livestream.

The players used the Reformed's playbook move where they call out a hero or other reputable figure when they're doing something they shouldn't be to have a 'is this really your jurisdiction?' moment with the Slavation forces, and established some laws related to heroes in halcyon city and their jurisdiction to handle things.

This led to them finding out from the Reformed's contact... Jerry, who they used a power to tap for information, which screwed up the Unleashed Powers role, and caused him to spontaneously manifest black lightning powers-- he decides he must be the Star who busted up the deal's nemesis, dubbing himself "Black Lightning Geraldine" but they do find out that criminals are getting drugs that turn them into supers from a black market deal with a pharmaceutical company (company originally established by the Brain's player, in a rant about their character's wild conspiracy theories.) for... reasons, in reaction to something else they did, this led to AEGIS calling the Reformed (part of their villain rehabilitation program, at character creation) into a raid on a sale.

Thats actually a pretty good summary of the last time it was my turn to GM.

 

[Emerikol]

One thing I am certain of from reading these threads. A lot of people don't understand my games or how they work and their experiences of my style are at best a caricature. Please note I said A LOT and not ALL.

In my games, plot emerges when NPCs who have an agenda run afoul of the PCs or the reverse. That means if they don't interfere with each other then it won't happen. There is not plot in the sense anything is being preordained. Nothing is preordained. The world is a sandbox FULL of NPCS all with personalities and agendas. Some good and some bad. They will on occasion conflict with each other and with the PCs. That conflict drives the game.

My games are very much about making decisions as your character. Let's suppose in the future a super advanced AI existed that created an entire imaginary world and everyone got highly effective VR suits and played in that world. That is the objective of my game style. You are the character. The character is not your piece, your pawn, or whatever. You are the character. You do what your character would do. Your character knows what you know. If you want to have a deeper background then do more work in session 0.

For some this style of play is desirable, it's deep, it's immersive. You begin to feel like you are living and acting in a real world full of fantasy and lore.

I get from a lot of you, I'm guessing upon your own bad experiences in bad groups, that you don't experience what I experience. That is sad but I get it. Just realize that some groups out there are experiencing and enjoying it. And it's really good. It's not the shallow caricature you seem to envision when you think about my style.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My games are very much about making decisions as your character. Let's suppose in the future a super advanced AI existed that created an entire imaginary world and everyone got highly effective VR suits and played in that world. That is the objective of my game style. You are the character. The character is not your piece, your pawn, or whatever. You are the character. You do what your character would do. Your character knows what you know. If you want to have a deeper background then do more work in session 0.

And I'm playing a tourist. Someone who has only barely arrived in the setting and who has knowledge of other worlds. They don't reflexively know what the place smells like or all the local gossip, and I can't play a basketweaver because I do not personally have any experience basketweaving.

For some this style of play is desirable, it's deep, it's immersive. You begin to feel like you are living and acting in a real world full of fantasy and lore.

And for others it's inappropriate for anything other than a tactical game or an isekai. And 4e is the only D&D where the tactics are consistently other than facile - and Isekai isn't a particularly deep genre.

If my character knows what I know and I know what they do then basically the only character I can play is Neonchameleon walks through a portal and gets superpowers. For RP purposes there are things I know (like how to make gunpowder - or even have a pretty good memory for MM statblocks as I DM) that my character should not. And things my character should know that I do not unless I wrote an entire novel as background.

The depth of roleplaying to me comes from putting myself into the shoes of another. Your insistence that I only know what my character does and they only know what I do means that I might have a fun time in your game (I've had a fun time in similar games) but it's anything but what I'd call deep.

I get from a lot of you, I'm guessing upon your own bad experiences in bad groups, that you don't experience what I experience. That is sad but I get it. Just realize that some groups out there are experiencing and enjoying it. And it's really good. It's not the shallow caricature you seem to envision when you think about my style.

Oh, I experience what you experience. And every once in a while it can be fun to jump back in the heated community swimming baths where the waters are warm and bleed isn't a thing because my character is fundamentally no different from me in what they know and because I am my character rather than I am putting myself into the shoes of someone fundamentally different from me.

 

[pemerton]

I’m responding for my own edification since it seems like what’s being described fits with what Edwards describes as “setting-centric Story Now play”. Is the issue that if you aren’t taking a principled approach (e.g., something like what Edwards describes for doing it with a confused game text), that the game risks becoming incoherent?

For example, let’s assume we’re going to play a campaign using Pathfinder 2e. We decide on a village on the border between Andoran and Cheliax. Andoran is sort of like a fantasy frontier America while Cheliax is an empire of diabloists. Play starts with various situations like the Church of Asmodeus has come to town, rebels against the rule of House Thrune are causing trouble in the area, and so on. So far, it sounds like we have all the pieces in place to begin our setting-centric Story Now play.

Of course, play doesn’t just start at the status quo and then nothing happens. The PCs are going to go out and do things. They’re going to impose themselves on the setting all over the place (break the rebels’ stuff, etc). We’re playing for the emergent story, so that’s the point. However, because there are no principles to keep the GM honest, will a plot emerge arise in the GM’s notes eventually (inevitably?)? And if one does emerge, we’ve ended up playing something different from what we think we’re playing (Story Now vs. Story Before).

When I made my post I wasn't thinking in terms of risk, just different approaches to play - including different ways of putting the "myth" (ie the pre-established setting elements) to work.

In the situation you describe there is a possibility of a move from "story now" to GM-determined "story before". In a typical D&D game (I'm thinking especially AD&D, 3E or 5e), I think this possibility is more likely to arise not from a lack of principles but a lack of resolution procedures that can work independently of a GM's prior conception of outcomes. (I don't know PF2 at all well enough to comment on it in this respect.)

Just as likely, though, and maybe more likely - again I don't know the details of PF2 in this respect compared to those other versions of D&D - is that the resolution procedures, which include a lot of map-and-key resolution, equipment lists and gold piece totals and the like, push play away from "story now" to a procedural focus and a more "wargamey" feel. This possibility is also present if the system being used is something like RM, RQ, Classic Traveller or similar.

In either case I think the table would, or at least could, notice - so It would be ending up playing something different from what we set out to play. The opposite can happen, too - drifting from what was intended as "procedural" play to a more "story now" approach. I've done this using RM. And then you notice how all that procedural stuff starts to get in the way, or require particular "tricks" for working around it. Even Prince Valiant, a classic system for story now RPGing, has gold piece totals that occasionally rear their ugly heads!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Your character knows what you know.

My character knows he's make believe? That's some fourth wall action!

 

[pemerton]

one of the villains of the story is the mother of the player playing the Scion playbook (child of villain story archetype, basically) just used one of the party's members attempts to throw AEGIS under the bus, and a recent disaster they had been a part of, to introduce a paramilitary organization that does what AEGIS does to the public under her control, a private sector take over of policing the supers in the city. This was established when she showed up as a surprise guest in a tv interview one of the players had initiated to out AEGIS, one of her villain moves is basically 'your actions benefitted me all along!'

<snip>

when villain Power Bang Bang went to go nuclear after they pissed her off, caused our Transformed 'Chimera' to establish that they could mess with their own physiology to make themselves bigger and 'tougher' (they had hence forth only established that they could effect minor changes.

<snip>

Chimera established the underground medical facility they were already sometimes attending, and told me what it was like and how it differed from the AEGIS facility they were supposed to be attending, they established what it was like, and I as GM decided the doctor was the 'The Architect' a mysterious figure interested in genetic modification.

The Star established that Ascendant had gotten popular through a series of vlogs where they bust petty crimes, and reacted to that fiction by deciding to do the same

I've bolded the moment where (as best I understood) non-GM participants established elements of the shared fiction. Are you able to say anything about the method(s) by which this took place?

 

[Fenris-77]

My character knows he's make believe? That's some fourth wall action!

I know how the sausage is made...

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I've bolded the moment where (as best I understood) non-GM participants established elements of the shared fiction. Are you able to say anything about the method(s) by which this took place?

First was me as GM announcing it happened.

Second was me asking "What does Chimera do to save everyone?" to prompt the player to be more a part of the action, as shown in various examples of play in the book.

Third and Fourth was the player telling me they wanted to visit this place already mentioned in the answers to their backstory questions from the playbook itself, after the transformation, and me asking them what it was like.

Fifth was the player going "Ooh, what if..." and us collectively agreeing that it was a fun idea, and incorporating it into the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

In my games, plot emerges when NPCs who have an agenda run afoul of the PCs or the reverse.

That's probably true of most RPGing. It seems that this describes @The-Magic-Sword's Masks session just described upthread, for instance.

We don't get to the point of distinguishing different approaches to RPGing until we talk about how those NPC agendas and player/PC agendas are established: when, by whom, using what principles, etc; and until we talk about how the conflicts ("running afoul") are resolved.

That means if they don't interfere with each other then it won't happen. There is not plot in the sense anything is being preordained.

These two sentences appear to be in contradiction with one another.

My games are very much about making decisions as your character.

<snip>

The character is not your piece, your pawn, or whatever. You are the character. You do what your character would do. Your character knows what you know..

Are there any ways for establishing that my PC feels emotion X (eg sorrow, fear, anger, love, etc) other than I the player make that decision? If not it seems to be that my character does what I would do rather than I do what my character would do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's probably true of most RPGing. It seems that this describes @The-Magic-Sword's Masks session just described upthread, for instance.

Being fair it's not true of vast swathes of 90s-style metaplot where plot was what the NPCs did and so far as I can tell the PCs were there often merely to observe. Just one of the reasons I think calling the GM the Storyteller was a toxic choice by White Wolf