Players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play

[pemerton]

In a traditional role playing game, values are absolute, so they simulate absolute power differences, difficulty, and increases in skill.

<snip>

Traditional Roleplaying Games measure the power of different game elements in concrete terms, which makes them simulations-- if the Dragon is too powerful to defeat, numerical power increases from levels, treasure can adjust your odds of victory in a granular way. In PBTA, again technically referencing Masks, the numbers simplify into whether I am allowed to roll and are abstracted from the thing I'm rolling against. 1-6, 6-9, 10+, it doesn't vary by threat, just my own bonus, so there's no protocol for measuring my power against the dragon's power and having that relationship define my odds of success

<snip>

I either have the potential to succeed or I don't, and if I have the potential to succeed, we move to the singular action resolution with the predefined ranges for story outcomes based only on my skill and not by my power relationship to the Dragon in world. This is what I mean by it being 'narrative' rather than 'simulative' the action resolution only governs uncertainty, it does not simulate in the way that another RPG might

<snip>

I want that world to be defined by a network of (relatively) absolute numerical values so that my odds of success emerge organically from faux-empirical comparisons between those elements, that can be planned around, and finessed. PBTA (as an example of story now play) doesn't really do that in the same way, because the values are concerned with narrative outcomes of my actions as a scene in a story, rather than quantifying the relationship between in world game elements.

<snip>

I'd especially like my relationship to that game world to be granular so that I get to navigate that network of power relationships through those same simulative elements, a +2 sword isn't just cool because its a magic sword, its cool because it makes me better (by +2) at hitting dragons, which changes my power relationship with that dragon.

This merits a separate response.

I think there is a difference between the game uses numbers to measure degree of potential game effect and the game uses numbers to quantify the relationship between elements of the fiction.

To give a simple example: in AD&D a fighter with 90 hp is harder to defeat in combat than a fighter with 10 hp. That's a fact about the game play. But those numbers don't quantify the relationship between those fighters. Gygax is pretty clear about this in his DMG. It is even clearer if I compare the 90 hp fighter to the 90 hp dragon: the latter has lots of meat, the former lots of "divine protection". Divine protection here is not a quantitatively described ingame element. It's just a label given to a gameplay device, that the higher-level fighter is harder to kill but - in the fiction - hasn't grown to have the size and strength of a dragon. More strictly "simulationist" games like RuneQuest and Rolemaster handle this by using other mechanical devices to make skilled/"high level" fighters harder to kill (eg better parry numbers or dodge numbers).

To give a more contentious but I think more egregious example: in 3E D&D monster AC grows essentially without bound, by piling on ever-higher "natural armour" bonuses. The label natural armour seems intended to imply that these bonuses are quantifying some component of the fiction. But it has to be nonsense. The best possible plate amour in that system grants a bonus to AC of +15 or thereabouts (+6 magical plate). But there are monsters with natural armour bonuses in the 30s! What does that mean in the fiction? And why can't an archmage, or a god, forge magical armour that is just as protective? Once again we have a case of numbers being used to measure degree of potential game effect (in this case, they are defence numbers) that are not (despite the application of the "natural armour" tag) quantifying any relationship between in world game elements.

It's true that in a PbtA game a player can't typically increase the mathematical chance of success by accreting bonuses. (This is not strictly the case - eg in Apocalyopse World itself a player can step up defence numbers by getting heavier armour, or step up damage by getting bigger guns and grenades.) But that doesn't mean that there is no playing of the fiction to deal with situations. Quite the opposite. I recently read an excellent account of this in the Ironsworn rulebook (p 2081):

A leviathan is an ancient sea beast (page 154). It’s tough to kill because of its epic rank, and it inflicts epic harm, but it doesn’t have any other mechanical characteristics. If we look to the fiction of the leviathan’s, description, we see “flesh as tough as iron.” But, rolling a Strike against a leviathan is the same as against a common thug. In either case, it’s your action die, plus your stat and adds compared to the challenge dice. Your chances to score a strong hit, weak hit, or miss are the same.

So how do you give the leviathan its due as a terrifying, seemingly invulnerable foe? You do it through the fiction.

If you have sworn a vow to defeat a leviathan, are you armed with a suitable weapon? Punching it won’t work. Even a deadly weapon such as a spear would barely get its attention. Perhaps you undertook a quest to find the Abyssal Harpoon, an artifact from the Old World, carved from the bones of a long-dead sea god. This mythic weapon gives you the fictional framing you need to confront the monster, and finding it can count as a milestone on your vow to destroy this beast.

Even with your weapon at the ready, can you overcome your fears as you stand on the prow of your boat, the water surging beneath you, the gaping maw of the beast just below the surface? Face Danger with +heart to find out.

The outcome of your move will incorporate the leviathan’s devastating power. Did you score a miss? The beast smashes your boat to kindling. It tries to drag you into the depths. Want to Face Danger by swimming away? You can’t outswim a leviathan. You’ll have to try something else.

Remember the concepts behind fictional framing. Your readiness and the nature of your challenge may force you to overcome greater dangers and make additional moves. Once you’ve rolled the dice, your fictional framing provides context for the outcome of those moves.​

The focus is not on mechanical manipulation or accumulation of numbers. It's on the fictional positioning of the character, and the "stakes" understood in fictional terms. At least for my part that doesn't make the fiction less visceral or less real.

 

[pemerton]

Most of those things were analysis of my preferred playstyle in contrast with Masks intended mode of play.

I know. You are expressing a preference for CoC-esque play, in which a significant component of play is the players learning what the GM is imagining. But based on your description of Masks play - and of how character "dramatic needs" fit into that - I think that, as @Campbell has suggested, you are also playing Masks more like Ravenloft or a certain sort of approach to Vampire, and less like Apocalypse World.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I know. You are expressing a preference for CoC-esque play, in which a significant component of play is the players learning what the GM is imagining. But based on your description of Masks play - and of how character "dramatic needs" fit into that - I think that, as @Campbell has suggested, you are also playing Masks more like Ravenloft or a certain sort of approach to Vampire, and less like Apocalypse World.

Never played CoC, or Vampire (though I own COFD stuff) to the best of my knowledge I'm playing Masks like Masks, as its described in the rulebook, the stuff about exploration was my description of what it is, and what I like about it, but not in Masks (I play PF2e for my dungeons and dragons esque stuff):

We frame into scenes where things are happening based off what the player characters want to do, or what things just happen to happen in the world around them. we describe action and reaction in the fiction. We use comic book panel frames as the examples of play and agendas describe. Sometimes the fiction triggers moves, which resolve mechanically based off the relevant dice rolls. I follow the instructions to have adult NPCs tell the players who they are, which triggers moves as they accept or reject those statements and shift labels. The results of moves and sometimes things that just happen in the fiction cause me to inflict a condition, the players sometimes voluntarily mark conditions if they think it suits the fiction. The conditions inform them of how their character is feeling, which they express in the moment to moment roleplaying as modified by that character's personality, and they attempt to clear conditions by taking the initiative to do teen drama stuff (summarizing, but it depends on the condition) just like in the rules, its been suggested that those should mostly be color, but thats hewing back away from the instructions, which discuss the resulting spiral of action and reaction between players, and between players and NPCs as good, causing more shifting of labels, conditions and moves and 'driving the fiction forward.'

Players have, reject, and take influence from one another and the NPCs as the described in the book. We use playbook mechanics as described by the individual playbook, ranging from my soldier's (we alternate GM between me and someone else between arcs) attempts to request certain kinds of Aid from Aegis, to the Harbinger's ability to define the roles of individuals in the future. Villains show up, I try to pace fight scenes like a comic book, players have their characters do things, sometimes they look for specific things to use in those scenes if they have a cool idea, and if it fits the fiction we establish it as part of the scene. Sometimes people have ideas for what something is like, which the GM hears, modifies as necessary, and implements accordingly-- such as the underground medical facility and halfway house my Transformed friend had their character visit as an alternative to the 'AEGIS' facility they were in the narrative officially attending, I think it was technically established in a backstory question answer from the playbook. They had ideas, not for scenes, but for what the place was like, which I took and ran with, establishing new elements of the fiction on top as the scene played out. Sometimes we name characters collectively, especially because its a good way to get dumb superhero names, and someone will suggest some cool aspect of them or a power or something and we'll run with it.

We don't plan story arcs but the GMs sometimes hard frame into situations (not too much, like the book says, this is what I had to be careful of), closest we've come to that was me realizing I established a connection between one event happening and another by making one the cause of the other while I was GM. We have one player who plans too much in a Neo-Trad way, but we keep reminding them nothing exists until its established at the table, so its well handled. We have fun, I slam my face through the book religiously because I'm not as comfortable with play style as I am with something like Pathfinder. We do end of session moves, characters do advancement things when they've gotten enough misses and such. The "when the team first got together" stuff informs the plot even now, which is again, not planned-- the players enjoy their characters and have ideas about what they'd like to do with them, but they don't force those ideas, instead they learn about them through ongoing play and new situations, shifting relationships and confrontations with people whose perspective they didn't consider.

Personally, I'm kind of forming the impression that some of the people in this thread are so fixated on trying to prove my subjective view of game design wrong they're taking for granted that my 4-5 years of off-and-on experience with the game has to be corrected, because it couldn't possibly be reflective of a Story Now game, or that the shortcomings I cite might be accurate, and that our difference of opinion might reflect a lack of attachment to the elements I feel are missing, to the point where they might not have realized that could be a taste someone could have.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

The next campaign I run (and it had better be in HERO system! he said to himself) I've decided to go for player world creation. (I count the GM as a player.)

My plan is thus:

Session -1. (probably done via messenger): choose a genre and maybe a sub-genre. I hand out the guidelines for the world building exercise. Guidelines come with examples of what I want to do with session 0, as per below.

Session 0. (It'll be a long session.) I hand out index cards to all the players. Every player writes down on the cards things they want to see in the game. These things can be anything. Diegetic, extra diegetic, themes, schtick, specific scenes, whatever. As specific and as detailed, or not, as people want. None of this is secret - I want everyone to have a chance to get some immediate feedback but more importantly I want the players to spark off of one another's ideas. We keep going until we run out of cards or ideas. (I bought a stack of 500 index cards so I reckon it'll be ideas that run dry first, but you never know.)

Then each player rates the ideas 1 - 5, writing their score on the card. Any idea that averages 2.1 and up gets used, somehow, somewhere. I take the selected ideas and go away and try to make a working world out it. The higher the score an idea got the more prevalent it'll be.

I can't say if it'll work or not. But it'll be fun to try.

 

[aramis erak]

In adult groups, I have never seen a player take advantage of this impromptu "author's mantle" to give advantages to their character or the PCs in general. On the contrary, they sometimes introduce new conflicts and tension into the story. Mostly, however, it enriches the setting for everybody. It also encourages players to pay closer attention to the setting so that new creations are congruent with the existing fiction. I find that players are often harsher critics than the GM on this front, disliking things that feel too dissonant.

While I've experienced about half a dozen such players, mostly in their 30's and 40's. (of over 300 players I've GM'd for, or more importantly, the roughly 40-50 players I've run games with core rules that include narrative declarations by players as a standard rule.) JB, EP, RM, AG, GH, RB, and BP... plus one I don't know the name of (demo at store). Of those, only one was under 30 at the time.
The thing is, in those games, the designer expects the declarations to advance the player interests within the bounds of story and/or the bounds of good taste and/or prosocial ; those players didn't respect the "bounds of the story" portion (or in one of those cases, good taste, either). In Star Wars, it was easy enough to say, "Try again, that's not even close to plausible..." Less so in Sentinel Comics, STA, Dune, or MHRP, Damned near impossible in Blood & Honor.

To follow along, at no point in a Story Now game is it the player's responsibility to complicate the situation.

Wrong - Character Generation.

Part and parcel of the Story Now approach is that conflict grows from character's goals, and the clear need for conflict to arise in pursuit of them. This is, in many ways, the DNA of the Story Now movement. No long backstories, just goals that go across rough patches and may or may not be actually solved in play, but which drive players to narrate actions which lead to moves which may or may not go as desired.

Most of the people I associate with would consider Ironsworn to be a Story Now game... and right on page 4, top, it requires an iron vow which will lead you into trouble. And later iron vows as well will be conflict creators.

Several Story Now games even go so far as to be GMless, thus absolutely requiring players to contribute to the complications. And Ironsworn is one of those. I'm tempted to get it to table...

I don't think anyone is trying to "correct" your sense of enjoyment. In my case, though, I don't agree with your characterisation of PbtA RPGs. I don't think they are in any meaningful way about simulating the process of story creation. They are about the players declaring actions for their PCs and those then being resolved via adjudication in the usual way.

The difference from (some versions of) D&D or other "trad" RPGs is in the techniques of resolution, and the principles that govern framing and consequence narration.

Some of my disagreement may be based on misunderstanding or uncertainty -eg I'm not sure what you have in mind by impromptu establishment of fiction by the players. I'm assuming that a D&D player declaring I attack the Orc doesn't count as that, even though (i) it's an establishment of fiction by a player and (ii) is impromptu; so I assume you have some further constraint/consideration in mind but it's not clear to me what that is.

Really, I'll quibble and say that PBTA games generally are as much about limiting what needs mechanical focus as the framing and consequence processes. To do it, narrate doing it, and if it's not clear, the narrator or another player if not in GM'd mode, clears up whether it's a move or nor, and directs the fiction so that it matches the mechanical outcome. If it's not a move in that flavor, say yes and move on, or touch the X card or point to the line or veil cards, or even passive-aggressively clear one's throat in a notable way... story arises from the charactrers intents, both in harmony and in conflict, and in driving reasons for the GM to turn the story when the dice require it.

In Re Story Now vs Story Before
@Manbearcat gave a great comparison, which mirrors my own understanding, based upon interactions with Luke, Thor, Jared, and the rest of the BW guys a decade ago in their forums, and in playing games with fellows from those forums.

Simplified: Story Now is "go after the goals you put on your sheet"
Story Before is "Find out the GM's story elements by playing the conflicts the GM puts forward."

Neither is actually tied directly to rules. I've seen (and have done myself) story now type play in games with story before identity... specifically Traveller. Both work best with rules intended for them.

 

[Imaculata]

As I see it, the DM has sole authorship of the world, and the players have of their characters. Anything that falls somewhere in between, should be discussed by both.

If for example I decided mid game that my character's father was a fisherman, then that is exactly what he was. If however he was from a specific town that does not exist yet, that is a matter that should be discussed with the DM first. I don't get to just insert this new village into the campaign setting.

Likewise, the DM doesn't get to decide that my character's parents were secretly a cabal of werewolves, without discussing it with me first.

Actual example from play:

As a DM I wanted to introduce the father of one of the pc's into the game. But for that I first asked permission of the player, and I asked him what the relationship between his character and their father was like. Since he hadn't written this into his background in detail yet, I asked him if he wanted to add to it a bit.

It ended up being a really great piece of roleplaying. His father had given him away to a whaler, so he could learn an actual profession, and because his father was poor and unable to support him. This father had spent the rest of his life regretting this decission and thinking his son hated him.

As the player character became famous, he sought him out in secret. He talked with his party members, and found out what a great man he had become. Not one angry at his father, but understanding of the difficult choice he made. From afar he looked at his son from a crowd, and saw that he was doing well for himself. Proud and reliefed, he disappeared without ever exchanging a word with him. It was left to his party members to decide if they would tell their friend that his father dropped by or not.

I think as a DM you should tread lightly, and respect the authorship of the players when it comes to their characters, and their backgrounds. Also, resist the urge to kill off or hold hostage any characters mentioned in their pc background.

 

[Fenris-77]

@aramis erak Wrong? You obviously don't get the stakes. You pick complications sure, but its atill up to the player to decide when to deploy that.

 

[pemerton]

PBTA games generally are as much about limiting what needs mechanical focus as the framing and consequence processes.

I think this is true for all RPGs, though. To pick a well-worn example, D&D does not make the emotional state of the character a focus of framing, resolution or consequence. (Barbarian rage is an emotional state only in the thinnest sort of colour; magical fear is precisely distinguished from genuine terror in virtue of being magical - and like barbariam rage is a mechanical effect with the thinnest overlay of fictional colour.)

 

[aramis erak]

I think this is true for all RPGs, though. To pick a well-worn example, D&D does not make the emotional state of the character a focus of framing, resolution or consequence. (Barbarian rage is an emotional state only in the thinnest sort of colour; magical fear is precisely distinguished from genuine terror in virtue of being magical - and like barbariam rage is a mechanical effect with the thinnest overlay of fictional colour.)

AW, per Vincent, as quoth by Luke Crane, specifically limits it much more than more general purpose RPGs. The goal is to only mechanicalize only the thematic elements.

Meanwhile, D&D has rules for a lot of things that aren't it's core focus. Depending upon edition that can include castle building, making magic items, doing commercial trades, and operating a ship or caravan... D&D's core focus, in my estimate, being the push your luck dungeon raids that were the dominant published modules for AD&D 1E and described in the OE core, the AD&D and Basic Boxes (Holmes, BX, BECMI).

AW, on the other hand, has only some of the thematic bits for its genre. And pretty much anything that isn't a move, and isn't bad faith to the narrative, is explicitly "say yes." It also is explicit on the intentional leaving out of other things as moves.

Something some of the derivatives don't hang on to. And, in an ironic twist, which the more traditional GM'd adventures mode of Sentinel Comics does... 7 moves, 2 of them restricted: Boost, Hinder, Attack, Defend, Overcome, Heal, and and create/summon/build (one mechanic, 3 narrative descriptions that use it)

I like the mechanical clarity of Sentinel Comics... but I'd not want to use it for Dune. Nor for Arthuriana. Nor stone age. But for Indie street level to low-end 4 color supers, it's superb...

 

[Emerikol]

"Design by Committee" has some serious flaws, speaking as GM for whom world building is a primary strength-- while the ability to create something really cool is a skill, and therefore not a given, collaboratively fusing fiction is its own skillset in a way that solo worldbuilding isn't. You need to manage not just the validity of the fiction, but work out who can say no, why, and how others feel about it, and if no one can say no, its a dice roll at best as everyone pulls the story apart.

This was my point. On average, it just doesn't succeed. Design by committee is not a strength for the average group of gamers.