Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8009466" data-attributes="member: 42582">This whole approach seems to start from a different assumption about play from my normal one. You seem to be envisaging a main storyline that the GM is presenting/narrating, and that as part of that main storyline certain events “have” to take place, and have to resolve within a certain range of parameters. Hence these ideas like pivotal bad guys and pivotal NPCs. As you present those notions, the status of being “pivotal” seems to be the result of a choice made by the GM in advance of play.This is very different from my own experience. An approach to play in which the details of the situation are established by the GM as part of responsive framing and in an interplay with action declaration and resolution creates a very high degree of immersion and vibrant, evocative fiction. To give a concrete example: the giant steading in my Cortex+ game that I posted about uphtread was more “real” and vibrant in play than the G1 steading that it was inspired by – precisely because the description (including its smell, its wolves, the barn with the giant oxen, etc) were all established as part of the dynamics of play rather than being narrated unilaterally by the GM from a pre-authored description.Putting these posts together, I gather than when you refer to the world and my game world, you mean something like “the stuff that’s written down in the GM’s notes” together with “the stuff that the GM extrapolates in imagination from his/her notes”.And you seem to be saying that that stuff includes outcomes of action resolution – that is, the GM’s predetermination, or decision on the spot by extrapolation, about what NPCs will or won’t do when sincere action declarations are made with the goal of influencing those NPCs.That’s very different from how I run my games (be those D&D or other systems).I’m not sure what you mean here by having to deal with.The way I see it is this: the players encounter the baron. In the ensuing interaction, the players try and influence the baron. The GM decides – based on extrapolation from his/her notes – that as a result of one aspect of that attempt (eg the insult) the baron is now offended and wants to punish the PCs.What has happened there is that the scene has transitioned from one of negotiation to one of coping with a threat of punishment simply by way of GM decision-making. The players didn’t want the situation to transition that way, but the GM decided anyway without the use of any action resolution framework that would determine whose preference about the fiction should prevail.That is a very high degree of control exerted by the GM over the unfolding of the ingame situationThis goes right back to @FrogReaver’s point that I pick up just below, and my response is very similar (and consistent with what I’ve already been saying in this post): why is the GM including this NPC in the scene, given that the players (for whatever reason) regard it as important to burn down the orphanage?The GM could include a guard captain with whatever motivations. Or could have the strength of the captain’s feelings be established as an outcome of resolution rather than as an input into resolution. So why include this particular captain? What effect is it meant to have on the play experience?I think that the bit I've bolded should be NPC. With that correction, I completely agree. Setting up impossible/inflexible NPCs whose reactions are pre-scripted pushes the players towards expedience - what you call survival, accumulation of wealth and a murder-hobo direction. And the NPCs becomes puzzles to be solved within this motivational framework.The difference between the unswayable NPC and the monster that is immune to fire is captured by FrogReaver. Having to find a way of defeating a monster without using fire is an optimisation problem. But having to make friends with a NPC whose goals you oppose is about compromising your principles. Hence this sort of rigidity in establishing and narrating NPCs pushes the game towards expedient play.The same thing is present in the idea of making "smarter choices". Smarter here means expedient. What about making passionate choices?</blockquote>

Verification