Prep situation to create plot

[RenleyRenfield]

The topic of this thread is not really on what's technically possible in RPGing. It's about what's aesthetically pleasing in RPGing. @thefutilist wants strong narrativist play, and thinks that you get that from robust situation with causal throughlines following from player choices for their PCs that cross, or threaten to cross, moral lines. And is criticising generative resolution from that perspective, not from a technical perspective.

See below? See the other post here? Can you now see my confusion here? Yes, yes you are are both very much talking about technical aspects of a game that lead to how choices are made....

@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.

So now see the post above see it? One of you says "not about what makes a game pleasing" the other "this is about what makes a game pleasing". And yes yes you are both mushing in what you prefer vs how a game is written. @pemerton is 100% asking you to comment on "what makes a good situation for you via the GM" and you agree... sheesh...

I don't really follow this, or how it relates to the Torchbearer 2e example of play.

So no, the both of you are moving goal posts, changing the topic and now somehow we are asking to be specific to Torcherbearer 2E.... also never the main goal of the thread



"you're killin me smalls"

​

Do not make an adventure of town phase. When the characters return to town - triumphant or not - the players themselves are often exhausted from their efforts. Faces haggard from negotiating the horrors of their expedition, they want to find a place to curl up and spend their money.​

​

Resist the urge to dicker with the players over payment, lodging or other minutiae. Resist the urge to have their enemies waiting for them at the gates. Instead, let them attend to their business. It’s their turn to drive the story a little. Once they’re settled and winding down, introduce elements of your next planned adventure. Bring in the enemies. Hook the players with interesting tales. Then start the new adventure phase with a vengeance.​

So relating this directly back to @thefutilist's posts: the Resources test does not, itself, engage or pertain to the situation. The rulebook says that the players, in making these rolls, are "driv[ing] the story", but as I posted upthread this is mostly colour: going to the market, or visiting the guildhall, is the thing that we imagine that explains how and from whom the PCs are getting their stuff; it is not itself a source of "narrativist pressure" on the players. But when the GM introduces the twist - like, for instance, my example of the suspicious constable - the GM is returning the focus of play to the situation, and is - at that point - inviting/pressuring the player to make an action declaration that (potentially) crosses a moral line. (Which is what, upthread, I called the "narrativist moment".)

So I think @thefutilist's concerns about generative resolution become pertinent in resolving whatever action the player declares to deal with the constable. Because this is the action that may cross the moral line.

Ok, so since we are now talking to Torchbearer .... it's "Principles" are guiding a different sort of play than D&D or Vampire Dark Ages, so let's talk to that.

First off, you are wrong, the Resources test absolutely is and does pertain to the situation. I don't see any grounds for you to state otherwise. The situation is 'in town buying stuff and doing other stuff too. It's literally the context of the situation.

Which then means that a GM can, per a Failed dice roll... introduce a Twist. Of which can be a suspicious Guard, even who goes as for as to accuse of theft.
There is no moral line crossed here, that's not how morals or ethics work (in regards to the player characters).

If you adhere to the principles of TB2e then you are not supposed to be making an Adventure out of this. So it sounds like the GM wanted to introduce a new Obstacle (Ob) and should have assigned a Ob value for the players to make a test to gracefully send the constable on their way, or else the shop closes up and won't sell (as per common TB shops results).
Since you are not supposed to turn this into an adventure, combat, attack, arrest, should not really be on the table, unless there is some extant reason the player characters warrant it.
This is all verrrry specific to TB, since it has guidelines for the GM to keep the town phase to book keeping as much as possible, and that all Tests and actions should lead to the next Adventure out of town.

I think this raises a different question about the integrity of the situation. I'm not 100% sure of what I'm writing next, but I'll have a go, doing my best to adopt @thefutilist's perspective.

If the situation is clearly established "in advance", then what we are discovering, in play, is how the situations resolves - how it moves from unstable to stable - and we also find out, in that process, what sorts of choices the PCs were willing to make. Those two things interact in (at least) this way: the instability of the situation creates the "entry points", the opportunities, for the players to make those choices that potentially cross a moral line.

The more that the GM introduces new components/elements into the situation as play goes along, then (a) the less we are seeing the players' choices for their PCs, and the meaning and impact of those choices; and (b) the more we are seeing "plots driven by twists and turns". The reasons for (a) are because that new GM-introduced material (i) complicates the situation, and/or resolves aspects of it, independently of the players' choices for their PCs; and also, thereby, (ii) tends to blunt or change the meaning of those previously-declared actions and decisions.

I highlight in bold here a thing I like. This is a worthy and interesting discussion point. At what point are players so caught up in resolving Twists/Complications that they are no longer driving the situation? Good question! I really like it and want to talk to this more as this is a good clear point that can apply to any game that has strong imposition of Complications.

This is where I think we need to give more weight than people realize to "Principles" in these games.

One example is: TB states "don't make an adventure out of Town time". Which means the GM is 'breaking the rules' if every Twist choice they make forces the players to engage in a new situation, or if it sidelines their current situation. The mean constable is fine, but it teeters on the line of being a wrong-headed choice the GM made. I would say in that case, in TB Principles, the GM should not have introduced a Constable, as no crime was assumed/implied/attempted. It changed the fiction too much.

Second example is in Star Wars: A New Hope. Luke and Obi-Wan go into cantina to find a ship off world, and Luke gets accosted by a thug while merely trying to buy a drink. Pretty much same situation as the constable! Luke fails the roll to talk the guy away, and so a fight roll is made to attack the thug. But here is where the important part is = the GM never sidelined the situation! They were not kicked out for attacking a patron, the city guards were never called to handle anything, the band went back to playing and they were greeted by a few different pilots to talk getting offworld.

So despite the massive complication that happened, the situation never changed. And the players driving 'what happens next' is still in their hands and still progressing.

So sometimes, the GM can hit the gas (introduce a attacker and fight), and sometime they need to kill the threat and just get back to things (the bar returns to acting as if nothing happened) - however logical or likely that is...

Star Wars shows us an example of how to add complications but not take away player choice or drive. I can come up with more, if needed. As there are different Principles for different gams. So this idea is fluid across the types of rpgs we engage with. Some more bonkers (Passion) some less (D&D).


lastly, I want to thank Pemerton for the great and detailed response. It cleared a LOT up for me. At least.. .it feels like it

 

[thefutilist]

It is hard to talk about this stuff without context so I’ll use Apocalypse World as an example. There’s a PC called Grass and an NPC Warlord called Spider. Let’s say we’re at the third session and we’ve established that Spider wants to rebuild civilisation and he’s taking slaves to do so. Grass is a Savvy-head who works for Spider making tech stuff. Grass is also done with Spider taking slaves, So Grass goes to confront Spider:

Cue scene: Grass enters Spiders office to have it out.


So what we want to find out, the stakes, are most immediately whether the Spider is going to do what Grass says, and if so why, and there’s the potential for the scene to go in a few different ways.

Grass starts by ‘reading a person’ and gets a miss. What’s the right move for this situation? Well as GM I want to find out the answer to the stakes questions and so I’m probably going to say, ok you get one hold but so does Spider.

So the option that Grass chooses from the list is ‘How could I get your character to give up slavery?’ The fiction is that Grass just comes out and asks.

So how do I answer and should the fact the move missed play a part in that answer. To answer the second question first. NO the fact that the move missed should play no part in determining the answer. Why? Because we’re at the narrativist moment.


How do I determine what could get the Spider to give up slavery?

I analyse the fiction, what do I know about spider and his priorities and all of that. I then think about that to INSPIRE me to give an answer based on WHAT I THINK SPIDER WOULD ACTUALLY DO.


So the procedure is analyse > inspire > say


It comes to me that the spider would give up slavery if people could be trusted to act in their own best interests (according to the Spider), but they won’t and so he can’t.

So as MC I narrate Spider giving his spiel about the human condition. Then I spend my hold and turn their move back on them. What would cause Grass to see the necessity of slavery? Grass does the same procedure. Analyse the fiction and think about what Grass would actually say. In this case the player determines that Grass would never accept slavery.

Grass isn’t done yet though. Grass lays down his demands ‘well if you’re going to carry this on then I’m not working for you.’ How does the GM resolve this. Same as earlier, analyse and inspiration, then ask what would Spider really do.

In this case they decide that the Spider is going to speak some naughty word and then kidnap Grass’ brother and force Grass to work for him. So the GM says ‘Spider nods sadly. Ok ok, I’ll work something out.’

Grass is satisfied, if only they’d rolled better on read a person they they could ask ‘is spider telling the truth’ or ‘what does spider intend to do.’


See how it’s the narrativist moment that determines the course of play here? You just think about the character and are inspired to act for them. Some people call this being immersed in the character but honestly that can really mean anything.

 

[thefutilist]

See how it’s the narrativist moment that determines the course of play here? You just think about the character and are inspired to act for them. Some people call this being immersed in the character but honestly that can really mean anything.

Something to ponder.

If the above example is ‘playing to find out’ using characters decisions with a sprinkle of formal mechanics, then what work are the principles and GM moves doing?

My view is that, very broadly speaking, they’re all set-up stuff that leads towards the narrativist moment. I don’t know if I’m generalising too much though.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

...
See how it’s the narrativist moment that determines the course of play here? You just think about the character and are inspired to act for them. Some people call this being immersed in the character but honestly that can really mean anything.

So... lots of problems here, none of them massive, but there are what is really leading to perhaps other things not adding up.

Let's start at the top...

Grass starts by ‘reading a person’ and gets a miss. What’s the right move for this situation? Well as GM I want to find out the answer to the stakes questions and so I’m probably going to say, ok you get one hold but so does Spider.

So the option that Grass chooses from the list is ‘How could I get your character to give up slavery?’ The fiction is that Grass just comes out and asks.

So how do I answer and should the fact the move missed play a part in that answer. To answer the second question first. NO the fact that the move missed should play no part in determining the answer. Why? Because we’re at the narrativist moment.

This is right for the wrong reason. No, the Miss does not impact the proceeding play. But not because of 'narrativist' moment.
It has no effect on answer given from Hold spend because the MC already ruled "no results other than each gets 1 Hold." That ruling is over, the Miss is resolved. Anything forward, including the spend of the Hold is under terms of "the Miss led to no complications or raised stakes or animosity"

That is important. Because it informs the fiction, and the fiction is that these men are on same terms as they were before the roll was made.

How do I determine what could get the Spider to give up slavery?

It comes to me that the spider would give up slavery if people could be trusted to act in their own best interests (according to the Spider), but they won’t and so he can’t.

This is not a valid response from the MC, and this is where this all goes wrong.
PBTA is an explicit game, so it works in those contexts. The question was not "give me some philosophical mumbo jumbo" it was "what are your terms that you would agree to end slavery." and those terms MUST be executable. That is the the point of that question spend via Hold.

This must be handled as same as "How much to buy the monkey?" in which case the ringmaster says "$400 and he's yours." we have executable result.

What Spider should have said is maybe... "I don't have the cash to pay workers, so either find people who will do X job for free, or find cash to pay workers to do X job that the slaves are doing." or some such. I can give a dozen other suggestions for executable results. and why my inspiration went to those places.

Why executable?

because of Principles of play. "Nothing" never happens. And by spider saying what amounts to "there is no way to make me give this up" we are at a result of "the player's Hold spend yielded no results". (we don't even know if Spider will die to keep slavery, so we don't know anything we didn't before) .

See how the MC gave a non-answer there? The player spent Hold and they got nothing for it.

Then the example continues with the player doing the same.
So great, you both spent Hold to get nothing and learn nothing new other than "i wont back down" (and we dont even know what threats would cause them to back down, death? maiming? theft? leaving? who knows... we learned nothing here and we progressed nothing) No rolls at all would have produced the same results.

Grass isn’t done yet though. Grass lays down his demands ‘well if you’re going to carry this on then I’m not working for you.’ How does the GM resolve this. Same as earlier, analyse and inspiration, then ask what would Spider really do.

In this case they decide that the Spider is going to speak some naughty word and then kidnap Grass’ brother and force Grass to work for him. So the GM says ‘Spider nods sadly. Ok ok, I’ll work something out.’

Grass is satisfied, if only they’d rolled better on read a person they they could not ask ‘is spider telling the truth’ or ‘what does spider intend to do.’


See how it’s the narrativist moment that determines the course of play here? You just think about the character and are inspired to act for them. Some people call this being immersed in the character but honestly that can really mean anything.

So here is the REAL scene, here is where we actually see things happening.

We add to the fiction everyone gets to interact with: "Grass is willing to quit if slavery not ended."

He makes a roll to see how that affects Spider, and player gets a Miss. cool.

And we get a great result, the MC sets up a Threat clock or simply earmarks a scene to go abduct Grass' bother as hostage. And Grass get's an uneasy dismissal.

What made this "feel bad" is that Grass was give Hold that should have amounted to something, and it didn't.

Grass failed two rolls, he is stuck in the situation he is in, that's fine. It's how things go. Now it's up to the player to try a new approach since simple no-offering negotiation failed.

Which, by the way is bantha poodoo... walking into a hard-holder's office and demanding he change his ways without any ideas of concession or offering or buyoff... like... this scene was set up to fail from the get go.

And the MC choosing to set up an abduction is fine too. (with two choices on how to handle that, via players getting a chance to stop it, or princess rescue later, or other i am sure.)

...

Overall seems like a fine game/group/time. Could have been handled a little better, but its easily able to keep going and be fun. Just... stop being stingy with Hold spends and negotiation offerings

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Something to ponder.

If the above example is ‘playing to find out’ using characters decisions with a sprinkle of formal mechanics, then what work are the principles and GM moves doing?

My view is that, very broadly speaking, they’re all set-up stuff that leads towards the narrativist moment. I don’t know if I’m generalising too much though.

I think you did a great job at explaining things, and i very much appreciate the response! it was great

I think the Principles here are the "guide" for the Hold spends that failed the scene.

The book give some advice on this and one sticks out to me most =
You can (2) put it in the players’ hands.
I could easily see Spider being sick of dealing with slaves, he wants the results not the people farming. So he could have easily said "Fine, you produce X that the slaves are producing, and its your head if you don't. I'll give you N time to show me results, if you do, then we can talk about freeing them."

I also see this coming up along with "think offscreen" =
Or you can (4) make it a stakes question.
What are the stakes here?
is Spider willing to take a bullet to the head over this?
Is the player's threat of not working worth the brother kidnapping? What is the PCs worth here?
if Spider gets rid of slaves, what are his losses/setbacks?
What can he gain by getting the PC to be indebted to him for removing slaves?
What is so easy about slaves that Spider went to them instead of Y?

But also, as MC we maybe got ahead of ourselves. We are Master of Ceremonies, its ok to steer gameplay. If player is like "I storm into make demands" this is where you can, as the book says "Ask provocative questions and build on the answers."
I don't think the MC did this here, and likely should have.
"Do you really think storming in to demand no slaves vs you quitting is going to work?" = let the player answer - but build on it!
There is a LOT of follow up questions an MC would have for that...


Those are the top of my head. I think "being a fan of the characters" is always the best. And sometimes that means letting your NPC say too much, as it gives the players more to work with.

Something to harp on here = everything the MC did "shut that players efforts down". As a course of habit, I would suggest not responding in such black and whites, so de facto terms for NPCs. More yes-and or no-but would have developed the scene more.

 

[pemerton]

See below? See the other post here? Can you now see my confusion here? Yes, yes you are are both very much talking about technical aspects of a game that lead to how choices are made....

So now see the post above see it? One of you says "not about what makes a game pleasing" the other "this is about what makes a game pleasing".

No, @thefutilist didn't say "What makes a game pleasing". He said that he is not talking about "what makes a good story". He denies that the GM making decisions in pursuit of a good story makes for aesthetically pleasing game play. As comes out more in posts 42 and 43.

 

[pemerton]

This is not a valid response from the MC, and this is where this all goes wrong.
PBTA is an explicit game, so it works in those contexts. The question was not "give me some philosophical mumbo jumbo" it was "what are your terms that you would agree to end slavery." and those terms MUST be executable. That is the the point of that question spend via Hold.

From p 201 of the Apocalypse World rulebook:

“Dude, sorry, no way” is a legit answer to “how could I get your character to __?”​

 

[RenleyRenfield]

From p 201 of the Apocalypse World rulebook:

“Dude, sorry, no way” is a legit answer to “how could I get your character to __?”​

I guess?? It sounds like the scene was not well received, sounds like there was some parts that were not loved. From the entire lack of clear contention of whatever your aesthetic pleasing goals are... it sounds like it was not great.

So I am suggesting maybe... don't pick that answer?

Here are guides from the book as to why I myself would have not chosen that answer?

That answer led to ...meh results... so maybe in any case, there was a better choice?


Why all the pushback here? I wasn't in this game, so I have no idea what people wanted or need fixed.
I think I gave some useful advice on how to enhance the scene.

 

[thefutilist]

I guess?? It sounds like the scene was not well received, sounds like there was some parts that were not loved. From the entire lack of clear contention of whatever your aesthetic pleasing goals are... it sounds like it was not great.

So I am suggesting maybe... don't pick that answer?

Here are guides from the book as to why I myself would have not chosen that answer?

That answer led to ...meh results... so maybe in any case, there was a better choice?


Why all the pushback here? I wasn't in this game, so I have no idea what people wanted or need fixed.
I think I gave some useful advice on how to enhance the scene.

Technical point first: In the example given there was only one roll.

It’s interesting how people interpret scenes. The example I gave was, imo, great and the game working to deliver the experience I want.

More importantly though. Note how I’m NOT giving the player something to work with. I don’t care that I’m shutting their efforts down. I’m deciding outcomes purely based on what I think the Spider would do. That’s the most important point about the example and what I was trying to convey. Worrying about fairness or hold, or what the character deserves undercuts that.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds like the scene was not well received, sounds like there was some parts that were not loved.

Which scene are you talking about?

The Torchbearer 2e scene that I've talked about from my in-person game worked well.

The scenes from Fantasy For Real that @thefutilist has talked about, which I GMed, seemed to mostly work well. Because he (player) and I (GM) are both posting here, you can get multiple perspectives - but I think the failed charge to relieve the siege was a pretty good scene, and it turned out to set things up for a poignant ending involving the two PCs, Verly and Powgly.

I think all the other scenes that have been discussed - the Magpie Games one, and @thefutilist's suggestion for Apocalypse World - are conjectured/hypothetical.