Prep situation to create plot

[zakael19]

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.

Your 2: reminds me of how one of my Stonetop players eventually declared that their current character was going to “retire” because their desires and what they saw as important simply wouldn’t be compatible with going on the sort of expeditions the party was mainly going to be involved in. So they rolled up a new person and we introduced them and they had new drives (that still often placed them at odds, but in a different way).

That was cool, to reflect on and really conceptualize how your character’s priorities and needs have changed without any regard for the “party” or the “story” but simply following forward from events & a slow shift in mentality that culminated.

Edit: I like that Stonetop’s “Persuade vs PC” move first checks the meta for exactly this - circumventing either a prolonged argument with no forward momentum, or a move which could never resolve properly.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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.

I agree with @pemerton here, I think you are trying to weasel out of "authorship" in a process that is not, and never will be, you and you there then.

I don't think we are talking past each other, I think you are making a false delineation. As others have said, there can be no expectation of "true character" versus "player imposition"... that dichotomy can't occur since the character does not exist unto their own. And your attempts to give weight as to why a character would choose any given choice are not supporting any concept of difference from the player choosing.

1, 2, 3 = and any given way you can phrase what a ttrpg character does; will always come from "outside the cave".

Sometimes you might have a lot of fiction and content that 99% of 'players of that character' - would choose to do the same action. (i.e. the character is bleeding out, most people may seek to stop the bleeding).
- That is no different at all than ....
Sometimes you don't have anything to go from in the fiction, and 99% of 'players of that character' would pick a different thing to do. (i.e. your gunslinger is in town and has $10 to spend and a whole day to do whatever. What people have the gunslinger do is all over the place).
- That is no different at all than...
A player sees that they want to interact with another character, if only to have something to do or jump into the drama or just make introduction. Just like a real person who is looking for 'action', that activity drive is where a player and that character are both "real". And they are both doing the same considerations "what can I go get into that interests me". Trying to peel away the reasoning behind the player does not change the validity of story and action that took place from it. We could have gotten to a very in-character reason for things before acting, and yet it led to the same identical scene. That's because this is allllll authorship.
And sometimes its just more obvious that others.

- The fact that the 'player' has a birds-eye-view of the setting only serves to speed up the results, not make some that could never have been possible. Three hours searching town for drama to get into, or going straight to the guy with the gun, factually could have been the same end result with all in between of no consequence.

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.

This is dodging and no longer engaging. Don't move the goalpost just to have a contrary statement. Of course we can define that different ways, that's not contested, nor does it invalidate what i said in any way whatsoever.

Overall, the examples of play and the general weights you gave are ones that fit the example I gave. We could both come up with a hundred different weights and measures for what makes the choices feels good, pleasing, etc. You are saying all the same things I am, just using different words, that's fine.

Maybe I need to ask a few questions here:
- Which game system prevents GM or player from choosing any given aesthetic choice ?

- What was a time, and what was the scenario when, a person implored you not choose your ideal ruling/response?

- Name a situation when a ruling or resolving of a roll is both coherent and spontaneous.

- and lastly and most importantly, what GM (MC, ST whatever) "Principles" can you quote from a rpg that are doing active, maybe even proactive, work for you and your running of games?

 

[thefutilist]

I agree with @pemerton here, I think you are trying to weasel out of "authorship" in a process that is not, and never will be, you and you there then.

We're at an impasse. I think the 'sim' bit of rpgs is essentially a form of disclaiming authorship and the, admittedly, subjective experience is that of the world (fiction) appearing to operate under its own causality.

What we, respectively, get out of roleplaying is going to be totally different given our different attitudes.

 

[thefutilist]

One and three look like different instances of author stance.

Two looks like actor stance.

Yeah they line up I think. Creating no justification would be pawn stance.

see if you agree with the following:

The seduce/manipulate mechanic in AW is really saying 'look if this is going to be an actor stance decision then obviously don’t take the XP, otherwise grab the XP and lets get going.'

 

[RenleyRenfield]

We're at an impasse. I think the 'sim' bit of rpgs is essentially a form of disclaiming authorship and the, admittedly, subjective experience is that of the world (fiction) appearing to operate under its own causality.

What we, respectively, get out of roleplaying is going to be totally different given our different attitudes.

I understand, and this makes sense. I appreciactes you! I think it is worth noting to perhaps you in specific- that I do find value in the world appearing to operate under its own causality. In other words, I find value in what you are striving for and I look for that too in gaming.


I would be interested in a alternate focused discussion on how to aid the reduction of subjective world choice.

This comes from a place of = I think PBTA gets us close by having Moves that dictate response presupposed by the game, and not by the GM. This could further be done with themes and phrasing within a given game rpg book.

On a swing side note: I wonder if things like Pasion de las Pasiones does a oddly good job of this, since its based on a premise that nothing the players or GM says is true in any final sense. Since truth in that game can be re-framed or even invalidated, it is as if the we are discovering the world and plot, and unable to actually author it.

 

[FrogReaver]

This comes from a place of = I think PBTA gets us close by having Moves that dictate response presupposed by the game, and not by the GM. This could further be done with themes and phrasing within a given game rpg book.

Maybe I’m mistaken but I didn’t think pbta moves dictated specific responses but functioned more as a constraint on what the dm said next.

Notably, strong backstory. fiction up till now and social norms constrain just as much if not more so (these constraints being the primary ones for d&d play and probably most rpgs). The constraints imposed by pbta style moves often leaving plenty of non rules mediated dm influence over the fictional situation, with the backstory, the fiction and social norms often functioning as the larger and more important constraints for most situations.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Maybe I’m mistaken but I didn’t think pbta moves dictated specific responses but functioned more as a constraint on what the dm said next.

Notably, strong backstory. fiction up till now and social norms constrain just as much if not more so (these constraints being the primary ones for d&d play and probably most rpgs). The constraints imposed by pbta style moves often leaving plenty of non rules mediated dm influence over the fictional situation, with the backstory, the fiction and social norms often functioning as the larger and more important constraints for most situations.

Some more so than others. Some PBTA games more so than others. PBTA is faaaarrrr from a monolith in how it's moves are written.

So if we are considering an attempt to get the game to objectively inform us how it might interact in a scenario, and we are trying to build on a situationist idea that the game world and its characters are by and large acting of their own accord... = what is being suggested can be considered from a few different perspectives:

• Do the GM Principles inform or even predict that?
• Do the Moves impose simulation where the GM would needed to be authorial?

We would have to look at a specific PBTA game to determine how much each of these things are involved. But maybe we can consider a move such as "Manipulate Someone" from MotW:
Once you have given the target a reason, tell them what you want them to do and roll +Charm.
For a normal person:
• If you get 10+, then they'll do it as long as you reward them as promised.
• On a 7-9, they'll do it, but only if you do something for them right now to show that you mean it.
• On a miss, your approach is completely wrong: you offend or anger the target

For illustration purposes, we compare =

In D&D we get proficiency checks, which are ruled as:
If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge at hand.
Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective ar makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

The consideration here is that the GM is being given the results the game world is set to choose.
In MotW we are given how the world responds and what it expects (to be rewarded).
In D&D we are given no such additional info, only that the problem was overcome (not how or if any addendums).
the results are the same for fails.
You could nearly enter the MotW Move into an automated program and it would give results that represent a specific game, where as the D&D response could ostensibly be anything at all that could considered-pushing for a much more author/subjective result.

So if i am looking for a simulation of a world, PBTA gets us a tiny bit closer to a mechanic rule that imposes the simulation upon the players/GM. Where as D&D largely does not.

My suggestion in my prior post, was that we could if we wanted, take the MotW Move and push it further into simulation by being even more detailed about the results, using that game's setting, context, ideals, etc.

So here I am not saying that PBTA is objective, only that it is 'opinionated' - and to a degree possibly outside of what the authors(GM and Players) may want have chosen.

if I were to make a full-on simulation of baldur's gate, i would find pbta aided that engine a bit more. And i could push it even farther.

sub-note: the pbta move implies something the D&D one does not = that the success can be taken away or ruined if the player does not 'pay the price' of whatever the promised reward was. Which is interesting too !

 

[Fenris-77]

Jesus, I need to back up actually read the thread. You guys and making me do things.

 

[Fenris-77]

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


The player of Midnight says she finds Grass.

Let's back up this. There's nothing in AW or any other PbtA game that let's the player declare this. They can search, they can look, they can do many things, but they may NOT declare that they find.

 

[thefutilist]

Let's back up this. There's nothing in AW or any other PbtA game that let's the player declare this. They can search, they can look, they can do many things, but they may NOT declare that they find.

The GM still has authority and can revise as necessary:

Thefutilist: As grass approaches his workshop, he finds me outside playing with my knives.

MC: No because of X


Is much the same as:

Thefutilist: can I be outside of Grass’ workshop when he arrives back?

MC: No because of X