Players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play

[Emerikol]

Wow I can't believe this discussion which was pretty well ran through in the GM notes thread has now jumped to a new thread. We do have a lot of new discussers though so maybe it can be interesting.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

This is a good post, but I think that it misses that every RPG is fully authored by tge participants, the difference being who, when, hiw, and why. Your posts sets aside GM authoring as somehow privikeged in nature -- that discovery can only occur if players discover what tge GM authors, while saying that discovery cannot occur if a player aids in authoring anything. This ignores that all the other players, including the GM, now get to discover this.

Not every form of authorship is the same, the difference between player and GM authorship, particularly the way Story-Now games (my reference being Masks: A New Generation) lies with the way their role is constructed and how that frames the purpose of the things that they can create and how they can be engaged with.

Intentionality is one of the big elements here, where the boundaries of authorship can create creative cohesion by privileging one participant (the GM) with the lion's share of the authorship (it does this by designating 'spaces' of authorship as relatively strict constructs, the GM authors the world, the players author their characters actions), meaning that participant can utilize those elements within a single vision. This element of vision and intentionality is an important one to exploration as a play aesthetic, because you're looking to put the puzzle pieces together, so you want the pieces to fit together according to some design. Masks actually utilizes the GM for this role, framing them as a keeper of continuity and tone, and giving them an editorial role over the elements of the fiction that the other players establish.

An interrelated concept is the way the activity you're participating in is framed: are you telling a story about people exploring a dungeon, or are you exploring a dungeon. To boil it back down to a mystery structure as discussed in Manbearcat's recent post: a bunch of players getting together to find clues and solve a mystery is a very different activity than inventing the clues sporadically and deciding who the culprit ought to be-- both might be fun, but they aren't the same activity. Its comparable to the difference between building an escape room, and solving an escape room. Reading and Writing are not synonyms even if reading contains interpretation, and writing contains deduction. It doesn't matter that the activity produces an illusion, because the illusion is instrumental to the experience you're having, its about what role you play in that illusion-- the generation of the illusion, and the experience of the illusion are different.

By the same token, the ability to generate elements of the fiction outside of the character changes the way we think about the problems we're solving, an intentional move on the part of Story Now games. We aren't interested in whether the players-as-characters can find a way to solve the problem given a set of constraints, we're interested in what the solution the players as author-as-actors come up with means for the fiction, if my players establish a way out of the situation in Masks, that's fine, but I'm supposed to complicate that solution to give it dramatic consequences. You can certainly establish that Superman is wandering on by and can help out, but I'm responsible for giving him opinions of your characters, to make that an opportunity for narrative. Its the core of "Yes, and" we're building a narrative out of the elements of the fiction we're establishing, the point isn't the problem-solving as a player activity, its the construction of a story in which problems are solved, and we make that more interesting by building on one another.

Contrast with Pathfinder, because the players ability to establish elements of the fiction outside their character actions are more limited, they can engage in problem solving from the perspective of their characters. Problems are interesting mental exercises in their own right, rather than just as an impetus for drama or a creative writing prompt for the table. You aren't just telling the story of a dragon-slaying, you're slaying the dragon, an activity being simulated through the use of rules which emulate the presence of a dragon, the difficulty of slaying it, and the tools one might have in a story about slaying dragons. The GM 'runs' the Dragon, as a means of rendering a distinct entity you are constrained from controlling.

The purpose of the illusion in Pathfinder is emergent storytelling through simulation (which demands constraints imposed on the players authorship of the game world, to maintain their Ludonarrative role), the purpose of the illusion in Masks is emergent storytelling through collaborative authorship (which relaxes those constraints to refocus on storytelling, over simulation.) They can both be fun, but they produce different experiences.

In short, this actually betrays the crux of the problem:

The shared imagined space does_not_exist. It has no tangible reality to undergird its processes and volition.

The purpose of the constraints placed upon player establishment of the fiction, and the privileging of the GM is to emulate a tangible reality to undergird its processes and volition, so that emulation of a tangible reality can provide a constrained play space for the simulation that produces an emergent narrative (that tangible reality being curated by 'Story Before' elements). This is true regardless of whether the GM employs systems with rules that output consistent results to provide a framework, or uses their best aesthetic judgement to do so, to reference back to the GM Notes thread.

Story Now games, with their heavy emphasis on player establishment of fiction, trade away the idea of these constraints emulating a world to function as playspace, in favor of a more direct 'collaborative storytelling' model where the rules function as a structure to resolve uncertainty and prompt the creation of additional fiction, rather than constrain it. This is a tradeoff, because you lose some of the benefits of the other style, but you gain things from it as well. You can also admixture a little of that style while still maintaining the simulation oriented game play, usually by having the GM approve all the additions to the fiction-- which gives the players the sense that they're weaving it into their simulation.

 

[Emerikol]

Not every form of authorship is the same, the difference between player and GM authorship, particularly the way Story-Now games (my reference being Masks: A New Generation) lies with the way their role is constructed and how that frames the purpose of the things that they can create and how they can be engaged with.

Intentionality is one of the big elements here, where the boundaries of authorship can create creative cohesion by privileging one participant (the GM) with the lion's share of the authorship (it does this by designating 'spaces' of authorship as relatively strict constructs, the GM authors the world, the players author their characters actions), meaning that participant can utilize those elements within a single vision. This element of vision and intentionality is an important one to exploration as a play aesthetic, because you're looking to put the puzzle pieces together, so you want the pieces to fit together according to some design. Masks actually utilizes the GM for this role, framing them as a keeper of continuity and tone, and giving them an editorial role over the elements of the fiction that the other players establish.

An interrelated concept is the way the activity you're participating in is framed: are you telling a story about people exploring a dungeon, or are you exploring a dungeon. To boil it back down to a mystery structure as discussed in Manbearcat's recent post: a bunch of players getting together to find clues and solve a mystery is a very different activity than inventing the clues sporadically and deciding who the culprit ought to be-- both might be fun, but they aren't the same activity. Its comparable to the difference between building an escape room, and solving an escape room. Reading and Writing are not synonyms even if reading contains interpretation, and writing contains deduction. It doesn't matter that the activity produces an illusion, because the illusion is instrumental to the experience you're having, its about what role you play in that illusion-- the generation of the illusion, and the experience of the illusion are different.

By the same token, the ability to generate elements of the fiction outside of the character changes the way we think about the problems we're solving, an intentional move on the part of Story Now games. We aren't interested in whether the players-as-characters can find a way to solve the problem given a set of constraints, we're interested in what the solution the players as author-as-actors come up with means for the fiction, if my players establish a way out of the situation in Masks, that's fine, but I'm supposed to complicate that solution to give it dramatic consequences. You can certainly establish that Superman is wandering on by and can help out, but I'm responsible for giving him opinions of your characters, to make that an opportunity for narrative. Its the core of "Yes, and" we're building a narrative out of the elements of the fiction we're establishing, the point isn't the problem-solving as a player activity, its the construction of a story in which problems are solved, and we make that more interesting by building on one another.

Contrast with Pathfinder, because the players ability to establish elements of the fiction outside their character actions are more limited, they can engage in problem solving from the perspective of their characters. Problems are interesting mental exercises in their own right, rather than just as an impetus for drama or a creative writing prompt for the table. You aren't just telling the story of a dragon-slaying, you're slaying the dragon, an activity being simulated through the use of rules which emulate the presence of a dragon, the difficulty of slaying it, and the tools one might have in a story about slaying dragons. The GM 'runs' the Dragon, as a means of rendering a distinct entity you are constrained from controlling.

The purpose of the illusion in Pathfinder is emergent storytelling through simulation (which demands constraints imposed on the players authorship of the game world, to maintain their Ludonarrative role), the purpose of the illusion in Masks is emergent storytelling through collaborative authorship (which relaxes those constraints to refocus on storytelling, over simulation.) They can both be fun, but they produce different experiences.

In short, this actually betrays the crux of the problem:

The purpose of the constraints placed upon player establishment of the fiction, and the privileging of the GM is to emulate a tangible reality to undergird its processes and volition, so that emulation of a tangible reality can provide a constrained play space for the simulation that produces an emergent narrative (that tangible reality being curated by 'Story Before' elements). This is true regardless of whether the GM employs systems with rules that output consistent results to provide a framework, or uses their best aesthetic judgement to do so, to reference back to the GM Notes thread.

Story Now games, with their heavy emphasis on player establishment of fiction, trade away the idea of these constraints emulating a world to function as playspace, in favor of a more direct 'collaborative storytelling' model where the rules function as a structure to resolve uncertainty and prompt the creation of additional fiction, rather than constrain it. This is a tradeoff, because you lose some of the benefits of the other style, but you gain things from it as well. You can also admixture a little of that style while still maintaining the simulation oriented game play, usually by having the GM approve all the additions to the fiction-- which gives the players the sense that they're weaving it into their simulation.

I think this is a great explanation. Perhaps the best I've seen on here to differentiate the styles.

 

[Manbearcat]

By the same token, the ability to generate elements of the fiction outside of the character changes the way we think about the problems we're solving, an intentional move on the part of Story Now games. We aren't interested in whether the players-as-characters can find a way to solve the problem given a set of constraints, we're interested in what the solution the players as author-as-actors come up with means for the fiction, if my players establish a way out of the situation in Masks, that's fine, but I'm supposed to complicate that solution to give it dramatic consequences. You can certainly establish that Superman is wandering on by and can help out, but I'm responsible for giving him opinions of your characters, to make that an opportunity for narrative. Its the core of "Yes, and" we're building a narrative out of the elements of the fiction we're establishing, the point isn't the problem-solving as a player activity, its the construction of a story in which problems are solved, and we make that more interesting by building on one another.

Contrast with Pathfinder, because the players ability to establish elements of the fiction outside their character actions are more limited, they can engage in problem solving from the perspective of their characters. Problems are interesting mental exercises in their own right, rather than just as an impetus for drama or a creative writing prompt for the table. You aren't just telling the story of a dragon-slaying, you're slaying the dragon, an activity being simulated through the use of rules which emulate the presence of a dragon, the difficulty of slaying it, and the tools one might have in a story about slaying dragons. The GM 'runs' the Dragon, as a means of rendering a distinct entity you are constrained from controlling.

Again, a good post, but you're drawing contrasts that are either (a) not correct or (b) less stark than what I'm beholding here.

This reads like the misconception that "Story Now" games are "Storytelling" games. I don't know if you mean it to, but your post reads like The Alexandrian circa 2008-11 (or whenever it was).

Your conception of Story Now games in your first paragraph is incorrect and the distinction you use to draw the contrast is also incorrect (in play agenda, in GMing principles, in action resolution, in PC build, and in the integration of all 4). Yes, We are interested in what the solution the players as author-as-actors come up with means for the fiction. That much is true. But the below is also true:

* We are interested in whether the players-as-characters can find a way to solve the problem given a set of constraints (what you say we are not interested in in the first paragraph).

* Problems aren't just as an impetus for drama or a creative writing prompt for the table. We aren't just telling a story of slaying a dragon. We are slaying a dragon...an activity being simulated through the use of rules which emulate the presence of a dragon, the difficulty of slaying it, and the tools one might have in a story about slaying dragons. The GM 'runs' the Dragon, as a means of rendering a distinct entity you are constrained from controlling.

What you say we aren't doing in Story Now play and the contrast you use to distinguish it from Pathfinder (Classical Skilled Play) play are neither correct.

They're not Storytelling games where we tell a story about defeating obstacles where the GM isn't erecting actual opposition to the players and their characters. They're not storytelling games and they're certainly not storytelling games as power fantasy (which really looks like the Neotrad label). Not at all. Not in conception and not in application.

I'm going to summon @darkbard into this conversation because our very last Dungeon World session is the exact anecdotal framework you're engaging with above. He (a Paladin), his companion (a Wizard), and two Cohorts (darkbard's Paladin Protege and a Frost Giant Refugee of the city the dragon razed) set out to defeat an Ancient Blue Dragon in its lair (the ruins of the aforementioned city). At any point did you not feel like the game and your characters were hanging in the balance because I was providing an inauthentic challenge/obstacles (to use the parlance above, "that the dragon was just an impetus for drama or a creative writing prompt at the table")?

The Dragon (who yet lives) almost killed both Cohorts. Honestly, it was a razor's edge from a TPK and may have been if the Wizard wouldn't have deployed Protective Counterspell and had it work as well as it did. And the Paladin struck a MASSIVE blow that forced the creature to retreat.

These two GMing principles aren't exclusive (they're integrated within the whole of the game):

Be a fan of the characters​

Think of the players’ characters as protagonists in a story you might see on TV. Cheer for their victories and lament their defeats. You’re not here to push them in any particular direction, merely to participate in fiction that features them and their action.

Think dangerous​

Everything in the world is a target. You’re thinking like an evil overlord: no single life is worth anything and there is nothing sacrosanct. Everything can be put in danger, everything can be destroyed. Nothing you create is ever protected. Whenever your eye falls on something you’ve created, think how it can be put in danger, fall apart or crumble. The world changes. Without the characters’ intervention, it changes for the worse.

* I'm a fan of Alastor and Maraqli and Rose and Bjornson. I'm a fan of their protagonism, of their wins, of their losses (RIP Bjornson who died in this very fight).

* But I'm providing authentic pushback. I'm not pulling punches. They're not telling a story about how they defeated Avorandox the Ancient Blue Dragon that razed the Frost Giant City and I'm certainly not "enabling that story." They're fighting for their lives and all they care about via the mechanical architecture of PC build + action resolution mechanics + teamwork against an Ancient Blue Dragon that I'm playing to the hilt...to destroy them (not to shadow box a cool story about Alastor/Maraqli/Rose/Bjornson defeating an Ancient Blue Dragon). I'm a fan, but I'm honest adversity...like Bryan Cranston "I am the danger" (and honestly...Ancient Blue Dragons in DW are a HELL of a lot scarier than in classic D&D).

The same goes with Blades, with My Life with Master, with Mouse Guard, with 4e D&D, with Dogs, (and certainly) with Torchbearer:

 

[Emerikol]

Again, a good post, but you're drawing contrasts that are either (a) not correct or (b) less stark than what I'm beholding here.

.....snipped.....

The same goes with Blades, with My Life with Master, with Mouse Guard, with 4e D&D, with Dogs, (and certainly) with Torchbearer:

I think you aren't talking about the same things though and that is the crux of the matter. I'm not saying there is no skill of any sort in your style of game. I am saying that to people like myself when we think of skilled play then your approach doesn't represent that sort of play.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not saying there is no skill of any sort in your style of game. I am saying that to people like myself when we think of skilled play then your approach doesn't represent that sort of play.

Frequently, folks will say things like, "skilled Gygaxian play," to make clear exactly what skills you are talking about.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think you aren't talking about the same things though and that is the crux of the matter. I'm not saying there is no skill of any sort in your style of game. I am saying that to people like myself when we think of skilled play then your approach doesn't represent that sort of play.

Perhaps.

But if you (and by you, I mean "a person who would author this") say this about Story Now games:

Problems are just as an impetus for drama or a creative writing prompt for the table

or this:

We aren't interested in whether the players-as-characters can find a way to solve the problem given a set of constraints

then (a) you've misunderstood both the conception of play and the application of play and (b) therefore your framing of Skilled Play in Story Now games is inevitably going to be incorrect (because its working off of first principles that are not correct).

Here is a quick example of how this looks like in Dungeon World (and how neither of the two things above are actuated):

DW GM: The Ancient Blue Dragon explodes upwards with a wing buffet like that of a hurricane! An un believable gale assaults you and everything around you, threatening to tear the fragile glacial ceiling apart, resulting in a massive cave-in!

Ranger Player: I'm going to let loose a volley of arrows and slay this dragon (proceeds to pick up dice to roll Volley move):

DW GM: Oh yeah? Well what are you going to do about these hurricane gale-force winds that are throwing you backwards? And the cave-in above you? Just going to let the ceiling collapse on top of you?

---

Those problems? They aren't creative writing prompts. And getting that volley off is absolutely a problem with a lot of constraints on it given the present fictional positioning (gale-force hurricane winds battering you...imminent cave-in above you)!

 

[Fenris-77]

Skilled play isn't really system specific. So that contrast above, Skilled play vs Story Now is very much a false dichotomy. Skilled Play also, just an fyi, refers to the character-player balance and where the problem solving comes from (mechanical widgets or cunning plans respectively), it's not actually anything to do with how much skill the game takes to play. It's also a spectrum, not a binary. So anyway, all kinds of definitional problems to sort out there.

 

[darkbard]

Not every form of authorship is the same, the difference between player and GM authorship, particularly the way Story-Now games (my reference being Masks: A New Generation) lies with the way their role is constructed and how that frames the purpose of the things that they can create and how they can be engaged with.

Intentionality is one of the big elements here, where the boundaries of authorship can create creative cohesion by privileging one participant (the GM) with the lion's share of the authorship (it does this by designating 'spaces' of authorship as relatively strict constructs, the GM authors the world, the players author their characters actions), meaning that participant can utilize those elements within a single vision. This element of vision and intentionality is an important one to exploration as a play aesthetic, because you're looking to put the puzzle pieces together, so you want the pieces to fit together according to some design. Masks actually utilizes the GM for this role, framing them as a keeper of continuity and tone, and giving them an editorial role over the elements of the fiction that the other players establish.

An interrelated concept is the way the activity you're participating in is framed: are you telling a story about people exploring a dungeon, or are you exploring a dungeon. To boil it back down to a mystery structure as discussed in Manbearcat's recent post: a bunch of players getting together to find clues and solve a mystery is a very different activity than inventing the clues sporadically and deciding who the culprit ought to be-- both might be fun, but they aren't the same activity. Its comparable to the difference between building an escape room, and solving an escape room. Reading and Writing are not synonyms even if reading contains interpretation, and writing contains deduction. It doesn't matter that the activity produces an illusion, because the illusion is instrumental to the experience you're having, its about what role you play in that illusion-- the generation of the illusion, and the experience of the illusion are different.

By the same token, the ability to generate elements of the fiction outside of the character changes the way we think about the problems we're solving, an intentional move on the part of Story Now games. We aren't interested in whether the players-as-characters can find a way to solve the problem given a set of constraints, we're interested in what the solution the players as author-as-actors come up with means for the fiction, if my players establish a way out of the situation in Masks, that's fine, but I'm supposed to complicate that solution to give it dramatic consequences. You can certainly establish that Superman is wandering on by and can help out, but I'm responsible for giving him opinions of your characters, to make that an opportunity for narrative. Its the core of "Yes, and" we're building a narrative out of the elements of the fiction we're establishing, the point isn't the problem-solving as a player activity, its the construction of a story in which problems are solved, and we make that more interesting by building on one another.

Contrast with Pathfinder, because the players ability to establish elements of the fiction outside their character actions are more limited, they can engage in problem solving from the perspective of their characters. Problems are interesting mental exercises in their own right, rather than just as an impetus for drama or a creative writing prompt for the table. You aren't just telling the story of a dragon-slaying, you're slaying the dragon, an activity being simulated through the use of rules which emulate the presence of a dragon, the difficulty of slaying it, and the tools one might have in a story about slaying dragons. The GM 'runs' the Dragon, as a means of rendering a distinct entity you are constrained from controlling.

The purpose of the illusion in Pathfinder is emergent storytelling through simulation (which demands constraints imposed on the players authorship of the game world, to maintain their Ludonarrative role), the purpose of the illusion in Masks is emergent storytelling through collaborative authorship (which relaxes those constraints to refocus on storytelling, over simulation.) They can both be fun, but they produce different experiences.

In short, this actually betrays the crux of the problem:

The purpose of the constraints placed upon player establishment of the fiction, and the privileging of the GM is to emulate a tangible reality to undergird its processes and volition, so that emulation of a tangible reality can provide a constrained play space for the simulation that produces an emergent narrative (that tangible reality being curated by 'Story Before' elements). This is true regardless of whether the GM employs systems with rules that output consistent results to provide a framework, or uses their best aesthetic judgement to do so, to reference back to the GM Notes thread.

Story Now games, with their heavy emphasis on player establishment of fiction, trade away the idea of these constraints emulating a world to function as playspace, in favor of a more direct 'collaborative storytelling' model where the rules function as a structure to resolve uncertainty and prompt the creation of additional fiction, rather than constrain it. This is a tradeoff, because you lose some of the benefits of the other style, but you gain things from it as well. You can also admixture a little of that style while still maintaining the simulation oriented game play, usually by having the GM approve all the additions to the fiction-- which gives the players the sense that they're weaving it into their simulation.

I have to agree with @Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer: your posts here are super interesting and thoughtful but they expose a serious misunderstanding of the principles and agendas of Story Now gaming. I know very little of Masks, just a few blog posts really, and perhaps the ps&as of that game draw suggest different ps&as than games I'm familiar with, like AW, DW, and Blades, but even here from the little I have read, I think maybe you're drawing some incorrect inferences from your play of that game.

My current game of DW with @Manbearcat is not a shared storytelling game, and both he and the action resolution mechanics bring the adversity on the regular. MBC already covers the confrontation with Avorandox well above, and I was terrified during play, that maybe our story would end here via TPK, or, even more likely, that my protege, in whom I have invested significant game resources and fictional headspace, would die when there was nothing I could do to protect her!

Further, in an early session of the game, we almost had another TPK, this time almost drowning in the swamp beneath the bullywug-priest-occupied stilted hag's hovel to which we were trying to regain entry. That would have been a pretty ignominious and unsatisfying death for my Paladin!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I like it. Sometimes, if it doesn’t fit pre-established facts in the world then there will be negotiations. Overall, the more the players add, the better because it alleviates some burden off of me.