Prep situation to create plot

[FrogReaver]

In GURPS/D&D the representation here is that "the players have nothing that they or the GM did not explicitly state to have brought to or prepared for the situation which has not been stated/discussed by players and GM now or before the situation started."

In PBTA/BitD the representation here is that "we assume there are more things that could have happened before this, so the players get mechanics to insert into the fiction anything which they could have ostensibly prepared, brought, or established and that need not have been discussed at any point."

BOTH are equally plausible.

Not that you are saying this isn't possible, but my D&D group typically assumes competency as well and often the players can say I would have done X or brought X and that happens so long as the DM also agrees it was very plausible. That's not handled via a mechanical layer but at the social layer. But the end result is the same, some things just don't need to be discussed ahead of time.

 

[pemerton]

The Torchbearer example requires generating facts because the trigger is a skill use with no necessary opposition. In contrast to Apocalypse World which requires pre-established opposition, I.E. it’s conflict resolution.

Where the line got blurry is that implicit threats can constitute conflict but they do so by stacking a bunch of stuff together. My argument against that is really just raising an eyebrow.

More formally I’d try and look at what the escalation line is. I wish we had standardised terms for the following:

Intent – tactics/means. What are the means in conflict with, such that different tactics/means do actually constitute a separate arena of conflict and therefore produce a different meaning within the resolution.

Or more simply.

If I’m buying something and I use my money skill, it suggests that money is the means by which II gain my intent (buying something), and failure means my tactics/means is somehow insufficient. Which leads to switching arenas (ok I’ll steal it instead).

That’s not the case with the TB example because the resolution established nothing about the means. Or if it did. Yeah I get the stuff anyway but failure means the sergeant comes. Then really we’re dealing with what power the GM has to introduce more stuff and nothing to do with whether the means are tested.

A bit more about TB2e in this context:

Resources = money + reputation as a creditor (ie someone who pays their bills). So testing Resources to purchase some thing can be compared (loosely) to Acting Under Fire where the "fire" is can I find a vendor willing to sell me the thing on the basis of my creditworthiness? (From here on, I'm ignoring the money part, because the rules for adding cash dice to Resources, and then the rules for cash dice absorbing tax on a failure, basically mean that if you spend hard money then you get what you want even on a failure. So in the rest, I focus on the creditworthiness part of the Resources stat.)

The way that prep works in TB2e is that the GM should already know whether or not things of the desired sort are generally available in this town - this is managed through (i) the rules for specifying towns, which includes specifying whether or not they have a market, (ii) the column in the equipment list that indicates the default availability of each sort of item, by reference to town size, and (iii) any decision the GM makes to depart from the defaults - this can be done either in advance as part of prep (eg this town has no market, but the householders will sell you bread and darn your socks), or can be done as part of the negotiation around framing the test (eg I know you want to purchase an X, and I know that generally Xs are available in towns like this, but because of <insert reason here> there are no Xs available in this town unless you want to try the black market).

This establishes a general trend or disposition - that, in principle, these sorts of things can be purchased in this market by a person who is regarded as creditworthy. But it is the Resources roll that generates granular detail. If it succeeds, that establishes that there is at least one vendor of Xs, who was happy to sell an X to this PC. If it fails, the GM has multiple options and one option that is available is to declare (as a twist) that there are no vendors of Xs, or that no one will sell to the PC (because none of the potential vendors regard the PC as creditworthy), or etc.

I don't know whether you would regard this as generative resolution or not. As you know, I've talked about it through the lens of the implicit. And having spelled out the process a bit more in the preceding paragraphs, I also see it as the GM moving from a "generic" state, an in principle possibility of finding a willing vendor, to a more concrete particular state. Because the rules are very clear, the player can plan around this resolution framework - it's not as "mad libs" as the example of the brother taken hostage. For instance, the players in my game plan out their purchases carefully, so that they do the harder ones that are more likely to fail, and thus have a greater likelihood of triggering a result of the market is shut or you're run out of town, last. At the table, this is straightforward gamism; and in the fiction, we can imagine the PCs - aware that they are not entirely welcome in the town, and that their reputations as people who honour promises and pay debts are shaky (again, this is part of the premise of the game's fiction) - don't make purchase requests that really strain the loyalty and willingness of the townsfolk, until they are willing to take the risk of being told no.

So to bring this back to your post: I think that it is the case that, in TB2e, when you test Resources, it is your tactics/means that are being tested. But - and here I think I'm agreeing with you - if the test is failed, it's not true that it's simply the case that "failure means my tactics/means is somehow insufficient". Or to be a bit more precise, the GM is allowed to retroactively render the fictional situation more precise, and introduce details that explain why your tactics/means - your appeal to your creditworthiness - is insufficient.

But the way that works is different from how, say, stealing would work. If you shift to stealing or scavenging then (i) a different mechanical framework is applied (because of how town phase works), and (ii) the obstacles are calculated differently(they won't be wildly different - eg Ob 1 Resources won't be Ob 10 Scavenging, nor vice versa- but they'll probably be different enough in a system where even +1 Ob can have a real sting to it), and (iii) the sorts of conditions and twists that would apply are different. In Vincent's terms, the relationship between effectiveness and position and also between effectiveness and resources and between effectiveness and effectiveness (Resources can be taxed on a failure, but Criminal and Scavenging can't be) is a different one for each of these tactics/means.

So while it might seem I'm special pleading for Torchbearer (and, by implication, Burning Wheel) I don't think I am. I think there is a degree of positionality in their resolution which is not as pinned down or robust as you would prefer - from your perspective I think you're right to raise your eyebrow! - but I don't think it is as untethered as (say) some approaches to Fate or to Cortex or maybe even to HeroQuest revised.

The blurry line would be retroactive establishment of means, which is fine in some cases but fatal in others.

Verly goes to the merchant to buy some food and so we test money. I fail and so we establish that she doesn’t have enough coin on her. But given her usual positioning she could probably give away a gold ring or something.

If Verly fights the goblin and loses and I (or you) establish a reason why. Then we might be in dangerous territory because eliding the precise nature of the why has a different effect on building meaning/theme than a continual justification for loss.

Can you say more about what you have in mind with the fighting example?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Most of my contention is really around the first point. How does the GM make decisions for Noxious?

So what degree is there a dance or interplay between what I’m inspired to have Noxious do given the constraints and what I have Noxious do given the need to put forward something impactful? It’s a hard question and there’s tech out there that addresses that in different ways.

In a lot of PbtA advice I’ve seen, Noxious remains essentially a cipher by which the GM pushes buttons. I’m thinking predominately of Magpie games advice.

I am likely slow on the uptake here, but... I don't see what the problem, issue, or even contention is here. Like at all ...

All ttrpg comes from the fiction. So... why are we agonizing over what a NPC might do?

The only matter for when a game switches GMs is the same as when a TV show does.... plot and portrayal consistency. But that has nothing to do with PBTA or D&D or any mechanic system of any kind. If you have an plot, npcs, game overall - and you hand it off to GM#2 ...then its up to that person to do their due diligence to intuit what then NPCs are up to. And yeah, just like every TV show, things go 'oops' and change a bit, for better or worse.

There is no tool to aid with predetermination or consistent portrayal that is special to any game.

Write down their motivations, write down their assets and limitations, write down their persona. If that isn't enough for a new GM, hopefully the players can aid where things feel 'off'.

Are you asking for a GM Tool that aids you in your own internal consistency as well as anyone who co-GM with you?

That’s relevant to my second major point of contention which is what’s being brought in by the GM. You’re talking about a lot of player stuff like whether they’d have a car waiting or whether they’re carrying C4 with them. Depending on the granularity of the resolution they can just declare that stuff and I’d kind of expect them too.

The cleanest example of what I’m advocating against is in the following Magpie text in the how to choose a move section.

Picking the Right GM Move in PbtA: Part One

In the Powered by the Apocalypse community, we’ve gotten used to a few pieces of terminology we use regularly—in particular, we talk a lot about soft and hard moves. Steve Segedy of Bully Pulpit Games wrote a post all about soft and hard moves, aptly titled “Soft and Hard Moves in The Warren...

magpiegames.com

On a miss the GM states the villain has captured the PC’s brother. That rubs me the wrong way for all sorts of reasons but at its core it's retroactively determining situation (creating a reveal). What are the constraints on the GM though, what's the GM's job? To me it's throwing out the primary constructive constraints of roleplay games.

Again, this comes from the Fiction. So... what is the issue here?

• was the brother ever 'at risk'? if not, then yeah, GM made a bantha poodoo move
• is abducing the brother some 'save the princess' the players are looking forward to, or will this agonize them in a way they hate? PBTA says "Be a fan of the characters" which means when you make a move, consider what they want to "play into" as well as "Suffer through." Just because you can, and just because its possible, does not mean its where the story needs to go.

Example = Female character A is caught all alone and threatened by three strong men with weapons. She makes a roll to lie and threaten them off, and fumbles/miss. GM gets to make a move, likely a Hard Move. Is Assault an option here? sure. Is it logical and possible, sure. But is that what would make the best story for the character A? No, it leads to a brutal and closed end.
So instead GM makes a move to threaten violence, and give the character a 'Panic' condition where they get her to tell where the cash and clay-seals are and they take control over the quarry - for now. Now she gets to plot and take them on under her own terms while still being true to the possible dangers of a failed move.

This is the same as the Noxious example. Does not matter if the GM had already decided what the thugs would do when they approached her (they were going to do violence), when the time came and the fiction was at hand, taking over the quarry made a better story than assault.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

If I’m buying something and I use my money skill, it suggests that money is the means by which II gain my intent (buying something), and failure means my tactics/means is somehow insufficient. Which leads to switching arenas (ok I’ll steal it instead).

That’s not the case with the TB example because the resolution established nothing about the means. Or if it did. Yeah I get the stuff anyway but failure means the sergeant comes. Then really we’re dealing with what power the GM has to introduce more stuff and nothing to do with whether the means are tested.

Well, partially it is because you are still too limited in your resolution choice as GM here.

As a coder i can say there is always the third option = you get what you wanted but it came with problems. Sure the code works, but you failed your roll, so its slow, buggy, and hard to maintain.

Same with the purchase. And here is where Infinity 2d20 gave us better tools, A failed purchase roll is not just "you didn't buy it".

It can be also...

• you bought it, but its flawed
• you bought it but it came with a extra plot price
• you bought it but now it brought unwanted attention to you
• you didn't have enough money, but you wanted it anyway, so you went into Debt for it.

The biggest aid that PBTA brings to us in GM mindset is this idea of "what does failure produce?"
If the player is not likely to raise the stakes and 'steal' , if they just let it go 'oh well, cant have' = then failure results in nothing and thats Bad. "nothing happens" should never be a result.

If the player is ready to escalate, then "Offer a Hook" is the move you choose as GM, you place the bait "item you want is in that shop which closes up at night with no guard, just random city patrol", and you put a hook in the bait "the owner losing profit from that will cause repercussion area that raises stakes for the characters elsewhere" (cascading effects, butterfly effect).

Here are my GM moves and they work for any game, any system on any failed roll... they diversify your "rulings" =

 

[thefutilist]

So while it might seem I'm special pleading for Torchbearer (and, by implication, Burning Wheel) I don't think I am. I think there is a degree of positionality in their resolution which is not as pinned down or robust as you would prefer - from your perspective I think you're right to raise your eyebrow! - but I don't think it is as untethered as (say) some approaches to Fate or to Cortex or maybe even to HeroQuest revised.

Can you say more about what you have in mind with the fighting example?

Let me rewind a bit. My issues with generative resolution in the Spider example are tied to the structure of the game and the specific purpose the new backstory stuff serves. It’s why I keep banging on about no-myth not just being no backstory but also how that’s leveraged.

From the top with the Spider example.

Why is the roll introducing bad stuff anyway, given the GM can always do that? The GM can just have the Spiders goons walk in with the Grasshoppers brother. There are some reasons I can imagine but they all reek of post-hoc apologia.

To dig out out the old GDS terms. What we see in the Masks example is GDS dramatism at work. This is why the attitude toward fictional constraint is fundamental in digging into the difference.

Given we (me and @pemerton) have different purposes to all that, my critique is a bit different and a lot softer. A great deal of it boils down to the following, and I’ll use an example from play.

When Verly was trying to shame Manee, we went to the dice and resolved but we didn’t create explanatory backstory. Good, the theme does the work and lives in the elision. That’s the difference I was pointing to at the end. Noting when the elision creates theme.

@RenleyRenfield do you note how you’re talking about what makes a good story as a decision criteria for the GM? Me and @pemerton aren’t interested in that and it’s why our conversation might seems a bit opaque.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

From the top with the Spider example.

Why is the roll introducing bad stuff anyway, given the GM can always do that? The GM can just have the Spiders goons walk in with the Grasshoppers brother. There are some reasons I can imagine but they all reek of post-hoc apologia.

In PBTA, but really in likely most ttrpg; there is a heading in the GM section that says "When to Make a GM Move"

• When the players look to the GM for direction
• When the Fiction dictates drama or action is likely
• When a player fails a roll (6- , fumble, botch, whatever)

So aside from the guidance here, the idea is = in fact = very much "direction". So this like any other GM ad-hoc add.

BUT... But.... maybe the players are more prepared and we want to avoid that tedious "but I would have seen goons on the way in" kinda stuff. Maybe even Spider Sense is a thing = so many ways that "GM Fiat should not always be the only method here"

That is why we Look to the Moves, as there are conditional times when the GM should be held back or pushed to consider alternatives than whatever their own brain went to first.

Given we (me and @pemerton) have different purposes to all that, my critique is a bit different and a lot softer. A great deal of it boils down to the following, and I’ll use an example from play.

When Verly was trying to shame Manee, we went to the dice and resolved but we didn’t create explanatory backstory. Good, the theme does the work and lives in the elision. That’s the difference I was pointing to at the end. Noting when the elision creates theme.

I need way more context here. Those were words, but I am not familiar with why you are positing "resolve without creating backstory" and then moving on to "theme". Theme sounds like a game skill/mechanic/power here?
There is no "difference" to read into here, I am lost...

@RenleyRenfield do you note how you’re talking about what makes a good story as a decision criteria for the GM? Me and @pemerton aren’t interested in that and it’s why our conversation might seems a bit opaque.

I will be honest, I am still not sure what folks are struggling with here. My question above is an example of that - the example form play everyone keeps giving is incredibly vague, and without contention. so... more context is needed.

There seems to be questions of "why does a GM kick off what they do?"
And that seems to be how you are confused with how various game systems lean into or add mechanics for that?
And it seems there is some aspect of play or engagement that someone is pushing back on, but they are not sure why?

If you are not interested in how mechanics (such as PBTA moves, as only one example) are being used, then what are you wanting here? because my statement is not 'what makes a good story" = that misses the forest for the trees. I am using it as a material example of how adhering to PBTA Moves and the guideline text most all PBTA games have - and why they make those statements and how to see the difference in the functional, mechanical use of them.

 

[thefutilist]

Ah! I see. Ok. Well, I think I have talked ad nauseam about how Apocalypse World very very clearly handles and improves upon "how game provide stakes questions" and "players role in setting stakes". I can go back and revisit that if folks are interested, but to me those are pretty much the defining functions of a well done PBTA game.

I know I'm not directly responding to the other stuff you wrote but I think we’re talking past each other. Right back at the beginning of the thread I mentioned stakes questions. Reading through again I noticed this reply by you and I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying in the first post.

The way I’m using stakes questions (and it’s almost the way Apocalypse World uses the term), it can’t be bringing anything new to the table. It MUST be the case that stakes questions are mostly system agnostic because they reference a fictional situation. They have nothing to do with formal mechanics except in so much as you can write them down.

Taking the situation from the first post. Whether we play using GURPS, World of darkness, Cypher system or Apocalypse World. The initial stakes questions are going to remain the same.

The system resolution mechanics are how we answer the stakes questions.


To take a really obvious stakes question from my last Fantasy for Real session. My character Verly was leading a mixed force of humans and goblins to break a siege against an allied fortress. The fictional stakes are, does she or doesn’t she? That’s what we want to know.

How we resolved the question was by rolling the dice. Success = her army is victorious and the siege is broken. Failure = She fails and her army is broken instead.

We did it with a single dice roll but we could also do it in different ways. Maybe we use GURPS and have stats for all the different units and maps of the terrain.

Maybe we use some kind of custom PbtA style move.

10: You break the siege with your army mostly in tact

7-9: Choose one:

You break the siege but at a horrific cost.

You pull back your forces and the enemy digs in.

6: You don’t break the siege and your army is broken.


Does that make more sense now?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

The way I’m using stakes questions (and it’s almost the way Apocalypse World uses the term), it can’t be bringing anything new to the table. It MUST be the case that stakes questions are mostly system agnostic because they reference a fictional situation. They have nothing to do with formal mechanics except in so much as you can write them down.
...
Does that make more sense now?

No and half-yes.

What you posted there seems normal. We have a situation, we roll to see how the situation resolves.
And like you said, maybe its a single roll, maybe its many - regardless we are leading towards win/no-win.

No real issue there, it does what it says on the tin. But it also has no points of contention.
maybe give an contrasting example of both:
Describe A = what is it you think this is how it ought to be
Describe B = what is it you think breaks the situation, and ought not be
....................

Now, as a guess, is there a second half here (highlighted above) about the "bringing anything new to the table" the contention point?
It doesn't change anything though....

Even if there is a FitD rule like Flashbacks, we get the same result.
Just like having lots of sub-rolls, introducing a "oh, I spend X metacurrency" or "i make a flashback to preparations roll" = still gives us the exact same result = win/no-win.
It introduced new things, but those new things just acted like sub-rolls; they added complexity to how it resolved.
Nothing ret-conned how it was won/lost or that it was won/lost at all. The overall scenario still played out as much or little as we wanted.

So no, I still don't see the point you have at all.

Are you just against rules that allow a given situation to be addressed by items/elements that were not in-hand at the start?

In the assumptions of a wargame = sure. I get that; all of your army and selections need to be done before we start the match. fair is fair. but that is chess thinking. It's an utterly artificial limitation that is merely for competition balance.

In the assumption of a story = no. It's utter nonsense to assume any person is a prepared or competent as their character (and those supporting them).
It's also wrong to assume the elements we first thought of in play are the only ones that exist, when given a team of writers, the situation could have had so many alternative setups, preparations, elements - that we didn't think of. Each one logical, likely, and as realistic as the first set we came up with, if not more. So instead of a team of writers/GMs we just use flashbacks when clever and logical and likely things could come up (and to make that even more fair, those flashbacks are always gated by rules, so they are used to enhance the situation, not just skip/resolve it - not that it would matter because your example of a single die roll resolving a battle fails that criteria).

And if your point of contention is not this, then yeah, i am lost, my bad, ill let things clarify a bit for a while.

 

[thefutilist]

No and half-yes.

What you posted there seems normal. We have a situation, we roll to see how the situation resolves.
And like you said, maybe its a single roll, maybe its many - regardless we are leading towards win/no-win.

No real issue there, it does what it says on the tin. But it also has no points of contention.
maybe give an contrasting example of both:
Describe A = what is it you think this is how it ought to be
Describe B = what is it you think breaks the situation, and ought not be

I'll get there in my next post. Just to add some complexity before I do so.


To give a sightly more complex example of stakes outcomes. Imagine Verly is leading the goblin human force alongside her experienced brother Lighly. Lighly knows what he’s doing but Verly is determined not ask for his help.

So we could split the question into three binary outcomes.


Does Verly break the siege? y/n

Does she ask Lighly for help? y/n

Do her forces get heavily depleted? y/n


So we have 8 different outcomes. The best for Verly would be that she breaks the siege, with her army in tact, without having to ask her brother for help.

The worst would be. She asks her brother for help, fails to break the siege and has her army depleted.

We could determine which outcome happens by just flipping a coin three times.


Or translating it into a PbtA style move:

10 gives you three yes to spend.

7-9 gives you 1 yes to spend

6: gives you no yes to spend


That gives less potential outcomes but the player has to make a choice on a 7-9. You could also just roll a d4 to see how many yes you get to spend.

1: 0 yes

2: 1 yes

3: 2 yes

4: 3 yes

 

[thefutilist]

No and half-yes.

What you posted there seems normal. We have a situation, we roll to see how the situation resolves.
And like you said, maybe its a single roll, maybe its many - regardless we are leading towards win/no-win.

No real issue there, it does what it says on the tin. But it also has no points of contention.
maybe give an contrasting example of both:
Describe A = what is it you think this is how it ought to be
Describe B = what is it you think breaks the situation, and ought not be

So to go back to the example of the Grasshopper confronting the Spider. Even if the player of the Grasshopper doesn’t know about the status of their brother. The stakes questions for the GM are different depending on when (in real time) he’d decided the Spider kidnapped her brother. So before the scene starts.

So making a move on a miss that involves retroactively deciding the brother has been kidnapped is adding more situation (and changing the stakes).

If you’re playing to find out which characters cross moral lines, then it has to follow causally from the means by which the characters act. Dropping in more negative situation means you’re no longer a mutual participant in resolving existing stakes questions. Instead you’re generating plot through twists and turns.

I think that might be the best I can do to explain and I’m guessing anyone not already on board won’t find it that satisfactory.