Prep situation to create plot

[pemerton]

because of Principles of play. "Nothing" never happens.

Well, I think it's an open question whether nothing happened in @thefutilist's conjectured episode of play:

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.

<snip>

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

<snip>

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.

At the beginning of the scene, we knew that (i) Spider has been enslaving people and (ii) that Grass is done with that. At the end of the scene, we know that (iii) Spider's practice of slavery is rooted in his conception of human beings, and that (iv) Grass is implacably opposed to slavery.

So a conflict has been drawn out and crystallised, which before was only incipient.

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.’

This is interesting, because it shows that the development of the situation is only loosely connected to the deployment of the mechanics. The mechanics crystallise what is at issue between the characters. And here, the first concrete confrontation takes place, and prompt the GM to set up a clock or whatever method they use to handle the kidnapping.

Which, now that I think about it, is a similar point to this one:

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.

 

[thefutilist]

Here’s some (hypothetical) stuff that happens after Grass leaves that illustrates more orchestration style moves.


The player of Midnight says she finds Grass. This is because the player wants Midnight to talk with Grass, not because this is any kind of weighty decision. She creates a rationale for it, Midnight wants her gun looked at. The fiction is being created to justify the orchestration.

Grass and Midnight talk. Midnight says that Spider is lying and wants a roll to read Spider. Spider isn’t there so Midnight says she’ll just think about what Spider would do (she’s been one of his Captains). The MC says that’s fine and they roll and she misses. So she gets a question ‘what does Spider intend to do?’. I say that Spider is going to kidnap Grass' brother.

Now as MC, because of the miss, I can get funky with the whole thing. I decide that Spider immediately sent his goons out to get the brother and murder any opposition. So they’re right there off screen, one of them lining up a sniper rifle on Midnight. I ask if she wants to read a sitch. She does and she fails the roll, she gets a question ‘what should I be on the look out for?’ I say her stomach explodes, and she takes 4 harm -1 armour down to 3, and she should be on the lookout for the sniper.

If she’d not rolled a miss on the read move, I would have had the goons come later giving them more time to prepare. If she’d not rolled a miss on the read a sitch, I’d have had the bullet hit the wall near her, not directly inflict harm.

I’d also float the idea of one of the seize by force options being, hold off the goons from getting the brother. I’m massaging the fictional positioning to allow the choices in the seize move to do work. Specifically what the gang are doing, their size and how armed and armoured they are. Basically I’m balancing the encounter, although when I next play (If I do), I’ll have to have a long think about whether I’m going to continue to do that.

 

[thefutilist]

This is interesting, because it shows that the development of the situation is only loosely connected to the deployment of the mechanics. The mechanics crystallise what is at issue between the characters.

Yeah I find these really interesting. A lot of the Burned over moves expand on this in a way I find neat. They still rely on the MC making a choice but they’re highlighting the fact and clarifying the situation and what’s at stake.

I said earlier that were I in your shoes I’d have gone to the dice for the final Verly, Manee conflict (despite my bluster). Adding these type of moves can take the pressure off. Not that I’m suggesting actually adding them but you get my point.

A lot of the architecture of Firebrands seems to me to be built on a similar principle.

 

[thefutilist]

@pemerton Also apologies. I slipped in my whole thing about the GM just choosing and equated that with the narrative moment. Your initial thing was closer to what I meant. You can’t undercut the means, even if you’re deciding the conflict outcome with fortune resolution.

 

[pemerton]

I said earlier that were I in your shoes I’d have gone to the dice for the final Verly, Manee conflict (despite my bluster). Adding these type of moves can take the pressure off. Not that I’m suggesting actually adding them but you get my point.

This reminded me of the following from my 4e D&D game, where at the crucial moment I didn't go to the dice; I've bolded the bit of play that I have in mind:

The Soul Abattoir is (or, rather, was) a location containing metaphysical machinery giving Torog a hold over the souls of those who die in the Underdark. Torog has the souls tortured before they pass on to the Raven Queen, gaining power from that process of torture.

The PCs <snippage> started following the map to the Soul Abattoir. This was mostly at the instigation of the Questing Knight PC, who as a paladin of the Raven Queen had the destruction of the Abattoir as his quest. (The player had made this choice for his PC.)

After getting distracted by this and that, including a detour via Mal Arundak on the Abyss, they finally made it to the Soul Abattoir, having just reached 25th level.

Although the Soul Abattoir is described in very general terms in the Underdark book, little detail is given. I located it at the end of icy tunnels running through the Shadowdark, on the far shore of the Soul Slough into which flows Lathan, the River of Souls. The "liquid souls" flowed under the ice and stone to the icy, Vault-of-the-Drow-style cavern containing the Soul Abattoir. The Abattoir itself was a series of buildings into which souls "flowed" in a fashion analogous to rivers. Inside the buildings the streams of souls were directed through Torog's various machines, which extracted soul energy from by way of torture, converting that energy into "darkspikes" from which Torog could then draw power by driving them into his body.

The destruction of the Soul Abattoir was run mostly as a skill challenge, but with a combat a little over halfway through (and some of this is reposted from other threads):

• The entrance to the Soul Abattoir, at which the PCs had arrived, was an icy tunnel floor, ending at a cliff overlooking the cavern - the river of souls was flowing some way beneath the ice, and flowed out from the base of the entrance cliff into Torog's various machines;
  
• The drow sorcerer and tiefling paladin flew to the bottom of the cliff, where the paladin blew his Fire Horn to render the ice more susceptible to heat, while the drow cast Flame Spiral to melt some of the ice, and then cast Wall of Water to block the flow of souls (check-wise, this was an Arcana check by the player of the drow, with a buff from the melting of the ice and use of the wall);
  
• The paladin and invoker then headed to the largest building, at the other end of the cavern, while the cleric-ranger on his flying carpet provided archery cover and the sorcerer flew above them maintaining concentration on his wall spell (check-wise, this was an Acro check for the archer and the sorcerer, and an Intimidate check from the paladin assisted by the invoker to make their way through Torog's minions);
  
• Once they got to the far building, the paladin and invoker sought the intervention of the Raven Queen to redirect the flow of souls directly to the Shadowfell rather than via Torog's infernal machines (one failed and one successful Religion check; the failure led to damage from a combination of psychic and necrotic energies generated by the suffering souls);
  
• Meanwhile, with the flow of souls stopped, the fighter fought his way through the other (lesser) buildings, destroying the machinery inside them (Athletic check buffed by expenditure of a close burst encounter power to fight through the minions from building to building, and Dungeoneering to wreck the machinery);
  
• When the PCs had all regrouped at the furthest (and most important) building resolution then switched from skill challenge mode to tactical combat mode, as they stormed the building and fought with Torog's shrivers plus a death titan;
  
• After the (very challenging) fight, during which the last machine was turned off by the sorcerer (the player made a successful Thievery check as a standard action once the PCs had finally fought their way along the central gantry that ran above the pool of souls), the skill challenge then resumed as the Soul Abattoir itself started to collapse;
  
• The ranger and sorcerer flew out of the cavern (successful Acro checks) while the paladin ran out beneath them, but was struck by falling rocks (failed Aths check, making the 3-person group check a success altogether as a majority succeeded, but costing the paladin damage for the failure);
  
• The fighter shielded the invoker (Endurance check) as the latter held off the powerful soul energy while the others made their escape (Religion check);
  
• The invoker noticed that Vecna was trying to take control of the soul energy via the invoker's imp familiar that has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it (as GM, I had decided that this was the moment when Vecna would try and steal the souls for himself; mechanically I asked the player to make an Insight check, which was successful);
  
• The invoker, having to choose between two of his patrons (he is a very pluralist divine PC) stopped Vecna redirecting the souls away from the Raven Queen, making sure that they flowed to her instead (in play, at this point I asked the player whether his PC - who at this point still had the erupting soul energy under his mystical control - whether he was going to let the souls flow to Vecna, or rather direct them to the Raven Queen; the player though for probably about 20 seconds, and then replied "The Raven Queen"; I decided that, on the basis of the earlier Religion check with no further check required, and I also decided that Vecna in anger shut down the offending imp via his Eye);
  
• The invoker and fighter then ran out of the collapsing cavern behind their companions, the invoker being shielded from falling rocks by the burly dwarf fighter (Athletics checks, with the fighter doing well enough to grant an "aid another" bonus to the invoker, so from memory neither took any damage).

In another post I described it like this:

The unfolding of the episode just described was heavily shaped by mechanical considerations: the successful Insight check let the PC learn what Vecna (via the imp) was doing; the fighter player's Athletics check let him shield the other PC, and but for that extra bonus that other player would have failed his check for escaping and his PC taken damage (and his PC is already at less than maximum hp with only 1 healing surge left).

The existence of the imp itself is also a mechanically-conditioned state of affairs (the PC has the Familiar feat). The player didn't know for sure what the mechanical consequences would be of blocking Vecna's attempt at getting the soul power, but he wasn't shocked when the imp was shut down - he knows that turning on Vecna is a fairly high-stakes matter with possibly serious consequences.

But the key decision that had to be made, in the episode I have described, was whether to oppose Vecna or to let him have the souls from the Underdark. And I don't see how this can be understood in the sorts of terms that characterise a decision in the play of chess or backgammon. It's a decision made by reflecting on the content and implications of the fiction - including evaluative implications - and then choosing by reference to them. It reflects the player's conception of his PC, including his conception of his PC's relationship to various gods and to the other PCs. It also reflects the player's conception of the broader fictional situation, including what is at stake in the fiction for the other players.

It seems to me that my game isn't very unique in having players make these sorts of decisions, based on these sorts of considerations. Whether or not "story" is the best way to describe what is involved, I don't think they are about "pattern recognition" or "guessing the code" behind the GM's screen. A D&D that hopes to be remotely mainstream has to have room for this aspect of play.​

Interestingly, and to me a little surprisingly, when I posted about this back when it happened, it caused quite a bit of controversy: Do alignments improve the gaming experience? and many pages of posts following.

 

[pemerton]

Separate from the "going to the dice" issue, some thoughts on how to do consequences of failure. Should the GM's narration of failure have regard to the values/aspirations of the character (whose action has failed)?

From the technical point of view of what do the rules say?, this differs across RPGs. For instance, Burning Wheel says (at least more-or-less) that it should. This pushes in the direction of no myth + flags, which @thefutilist doesn't enjoy, and has criticised with reference to the Magpie Games example. (Though personally I don't think BW is quite the same.)

Whereas Fantasy For Real points to something else:

consult your understanding of everyone in the whole pickle, including the players’ characters and yours. Some of them are present in the current moment and some of them are not, so refer to your local map – and make new ones – to consider who is affected by the current events, right now, soon, or later. By proactively playing their responses to whatever has just happened, you know what you will say “next.” . . .

At any time, consider all the active participants in the pickle, including the players’ characters, to decide which one will do something next, and where that might be. . . .

shift the circumstances of play upon the outcome of a test. Depending on what’s being attempted and whom it targets, either the acting character or the target may be affected, or both, and often aspects of the immediate environment too. . . .

The whole pickle changes through play: tests change scenes, and altered scenes change everyone’s perspectives or plans. . . .

Play the NPCs as determined to get what they want, and willing to try harder and differently if they have to.​

This has some similarity to "living world"-type approaches, but I think it would be a mistake to equate them.

Perhaps most importantly, I think, there's no reference in the FfR instruction to likelihood by reference to imagined causation. Rather, the GM is instructed to play the responses of those affected by events. The focus is on what the NPCs want, and their perspectives or plans.

This difference is reinforced by FfR's lack of nitty-gritty resolution of the D&D-esque/RM-esque sort. Which means that the GM in FfR can more easily and clearly connect big changes in the situation to test outcomes, rather than the sort of ad hoc-ery that D&D can call for. The rules reinforce this:

You [the GM] also have the job to impose transitions at a larger scale, shifting play location and often skipping some time as well. This is a new “opening” or initiation of play, similar to a scene-shift in other media, although without scripted outcomes. . . .

This dynamic practice permits you to initiate sudden conflicts or remarkable coincidences, whether in the current moment or during the shifts in time and space. . . .​

(In passing: I think his is at least part of what Eero Tuovinen has in mind when he describes Dragonlance as "pushing the AD&D content delivery chassis to its extreme ends and beyond": Observations on GNS Simulationism – Correspondence is about Diligence)

There are a couple of other differences too:

On the GM side, the rules instruct the GM to "Add your characters’ dialogue into play, expressing their views and concerns about the events – over-sharing, in fact." This is a version of DitV's *actively reveal the town in play. No GM turtling.

*And on the player side, FfR has its picklet rules - so players can establish goals/relationships and make them part of the situation. Which is binding even if the Elan test fails, though on a failure the GM gets to narrate how "your efforts cause trouble".​

These help make the characters the centre of the situation. Not an impersonal "world in motion".

So how does the GM decide "which one will do something next"? As per what I've said above, it's not by running a model, or extrapolating impersonal causation. Nor is it by deciding what would make for a good story - the only references to "story" in the FfR rules are in negative terms:

[Making a pickle] is not like writing a story or script. Do not consider where it may go, what the adventurer characters might do, what should happen, or anything else that must be planned. . . .

There is no story plan . . .

The game master is not “telling you a story.” . . .

There is no formal number of adventures to play nor any expectation of dramatic character development, or of an over-arching storyline.​

The only answer I can give at this point is aesthetic intuition.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Nor is it by deciding what would make for a good story...
..
The only answer I can give at this point is aesthetic intuition.

I think this is where the cognitive dissonance is causing a question here. See it above?

Aesthetics are a call to beauty, art, taste, desire....

Intuition is choice without (much or any) reasoning.

Good is the things that one finds beautiful, tasteful, desirable.

Story is the results of choice (without or with reason).

All of the criteria you say "Nor", is in fact the criteria you also say "Is".

Yeah, the words chosen can be a little bit different, but language is inherently not something we want to limit us here by. After all your reasoning you came to the same conclusion I did, and the same reasoning I gave in all my posts = all same same.

GM Principles help us see the broader picture
Amended past or appended consequences help us have more choices
Dice rolls of more than pass/fail, and meta currency give us more diversity in out intuition

The player of Midnight says she finds Grass. This is because the player wants Midnight to talk with Grass, not because this is any kind of weighty decision. She creates a rationale for it, Midnight wants her gun looked at. The fiction is being created to justify the orchestration.

This is a odd statement and entirely false. An author of a character considering what their character would do next, versus the author themselves deciding what they themselves will do next = both equally are the fiction, not justification.

Humans all the time make a choice to do a thing, and that choice is far too nuanced and complex for anyone in any way whatsoever - to say it was made after it could be justified.

Midnight want to talk to Grass. Just because YOU can't figure out why in a way that makes YOU satisfied with its reasoning, does not make it lacking rationale. No fiction was created to justify anything here.

And you have no case to demand justification.

Grass and Midnight talk. Midnight says that Spider is lying and wants a roll to read Spider. Spider isn’t there so Midnight says she’ll just think about what Spider would do

This is super strange to me. I despise that move in the game, but aside from my own hangups... letting someone read a person who isn't there seems to generate an entirely different result. It's conjecture, personal conjecture, as opposed to reducing a conversation and body language and tone that is actively going on.... (but maybe this is a separate PBTA discussion..)

 

[thefutilist]

This is a odd statement and entirely false. An author of a character considering what their character would do next, versus the author themselves deciding what they themselves will do next = both equally are the fiction, not justification.

I think we’re still talking past each other. Imagine I’m playing the Battlebabe Midnight (or whoever really). Can you see the differences between the following.

One: Thefutilist wants Midnight to talk with Grass because the Thefutilist wants Midnight to get in on the drama. There is no current in game reason for Midnight to be talking to Grass right now. So Thefutilist concocts one ‘Midnight needs her weapons maintained and so she’s at Grass’ workshop when he arrives there.’

Two: Grass asks Midnight for help protecting his brother. So Thefutilist thinks about what Midnight would do in this situation. Important bit: Thefutilist might want Midnight to help grass but the integrity of the character, what Thefutilist thinks Midnight would do, prevents him from saying Midnight would help because thefutilist doesn’t think she would.

Three: Thefutilist wants Midnight to help Grass and so he invents a reason why Midnight would help grass.

Some people just can’t see two as being a thing. Or how even if two is a thing, that three undercuts the ‘play’ of two. Or how one is different from three. I think those people just have a different orientation towards roleplay than I do.

 

[pemerton]

I think this is where the cognitive dissonance is causing a question here. See it above?

Aesthetics are a call to beauty, art, taste, desire....

Intuition is choice without (much or any) reasoning.

Good is the things that one finds beautiful, tasteful, desirable.

Story is the results of choice (without or with reason).

All of the criteria you say "Nor", is in fact the criteria you also say "Is".

Would make a good story is not the only possible aesthetic value according to which a choice can be made as to what happens next.

Just as one example, there could be an aesthetic intuition about the coherence of the situation.

Another possibility might be a type of sympathy towards a character.

Etc.

 

[pemerton]

I think we’re still talking past each other. Imagine I’m playing the Battlebabe Midnight (or whoever really). Can you see the differences between the following.

One: Thefutilist wants Midnight to talk with Grass because the Thefutilist wants Midnight to get in on the drama. There is no current in game reason for Midnight to be talking to Grass right now. So Thefutilist concocts one ‘Midnight needs her weapons maintained and so she’s at Grass’ workshop when he arrives there.’

Two: Grass asks Midnight for help protecting his brother. So Thefutilist thinks about what Midnight would do in this situation. Important bit: Thefutilist might want Midnight to help grass but the integrity of the character, what Thefutilist thinks Midnight would do, prevents him from saying Midnight would help because thefutilist doesn’t think she would.

Three: Thefutilist wants Midnight to help Grass and so he invents a reason why Midnight would help grass.

Some people just can’t see two as being a thing. Or how even if two is a thing, that three undercuts the ‘play’ of two. Or how one is different from three. I think those people just have a different orientation towards roleplay than I do.

One and three look like different instances of author stance.

Two looks like actor stance.