RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[AbdulAlhazred]

How is "I try to knock him off balance" not an action declaration? Same as "I try to disrupt her spell casting" and similar.

Because it literally does not contain a description of WHAT I DID. I mean, yes, as I even stated, the two may virtually become indistinguishable and interchangeable in some contexts. "I eat the pizza!" is an action declaration, but it probably also largely subsumes and implies the goal of "having the gustatory experience of pizza-eating" or maybe "having the nutritional experience of pizza-eating" (and which is the primary focus is likely abundantly apparent from context). "I try to disrupt her spell casting" is a nothing-burger as far as D&D-like systems go, it might as well not have even been uttered as it adds nothing but color to the proceeding. Now that, or the off-balance one, MAY prompt the GM, in some cases to invent an action for themselves, but that's just lazy playing! I mean, most of us probably do this kind of thing often, but its still not the full explication of what's HAPPENING. The GM is taking control of the PC and saying "Well, he's a fighter standing in front of this other guy, OK he probably shoves him..." Honestly I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't get your hackles up, as you are IME pretty hostile to GMs filling in the blanks in other contexts.

Sure, the DM might want clarification as to HOW you intend to try these things; but as declarations I think they stand up.

Like it or not, some players are happy to leave the "how" piece to the GM to fill in. And in other cases the how might be fairly obvious and thus not really need to be stated.

But the GM isn't going to 'want' such clarification, it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL to have it, because you cannot adjudicate "I want to push him over", you MUST adjudicate something like "I step forward, sword across my chest, and shove him hard!" Again, the GM can take over the PC and basically say this, or at least assume it, and proceed, perhaps. Even that won't always be possible.

No, you may be used to making light of the process and thus obscuring the distinction, but it is a vital distinction!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Or more importantly, one can also ask, ‘how do you slice at his throat’ - showing that being able to ask how isn’t the differentiator for action vs non-action.

Yes it is! Again, like @Lanefan you are making the mistake of obscuring the process by taking shortcuts and then mistaking this rump for the actual full process. The REAL FORMAL PROCESS in D&D is to describe the ACTION, and not the intent. In fact, describing the intent could lead to issues, though probably not critical ones. Remember, D&D wants 'fortune' to PRECEDE a description of the outcome. You must roll your 'trip attempt' die to see what, mechanically, happened and THEN you can describe your actual intent. In D&D the intent is otherwise irrelevant, you failed, the action did not take place, or possibly it went awry at some point in its execution which effectively thwarted it (IE maybe the goblin WAS pushed down, but being an acrobatic little freak he did a shoulder roll and he's back on his feet just like that).

 

[darkbard]

But the GM isn't going to 'want' such clarification, it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL to have it, because you cannot adjudicate "I want to push him over", you MUST adjudicate something like "I step forward, sword across my chest, and shove him hard!" Again, the GM can take over the PC and basically say this, or at least assume it, and proceed, perhaps. Even that won't always be possible.

No, you may be used to making light of the process and thus obscuring the distinction, but it is a vital distinction!

Just a quick addendum to this, I hope not unwarranted: this is why Fiction First is terminology that often is associated with games that rely on conflict resolution and narrativist methods as core parts of their makeup. The fiction--what is happening in the scene to account for the gamist elements--is absolutely as important (for future actions, adjudications, and so on) as any roll in the real world.

ETA: And see Abdul's addition above for the timing of First!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't see how it is coherent to have both "GM's secret backstory exists" and "GM is not allowed to block player actions due secret backstory."

And any piece of "myth" that is not already revealed to the players is "GM's secret backstory."

And this is why it makes a difference as to what the resolution system takes as its unit of resolution. If you have goal/intent resolution then set backstory isn't going to be a stopper level problem. You simply move up the chain of the levels of abstraction of what the character is after. They may say "I try to eat the pizza!", an action, which may fail, but if this is about goals then "I assuage my hunger, by eating the pizza" (which the GM has already decided is triple anchovy and inedible) can still be accomplished, you find a bag of chips under the table, your munchies are handled!

So, task + set backstory (high myth) becomes quite constraining to narrativist play, but other combinations work quite well, and even that one might work with the proper game structure, I'll let @pemerton mine his repertoire of game designer lore on that one.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Following from this thinking, I believe that it should be put that

(a) game text requires the group to establish setting, situation and characters, with goals/stakes that matter within them that players will pursue​

​

So the crucial step is ensuring there are goals/stakes that players will pursue. If players will not pursue the goals/stakes (and I intend the connotation of volition in "will"), how can their performances be predicted to resolve them? Conversely, if they pursue them, one can predict their performances will resolve them.

Well, if (a) is true it would be mighty perverse play if the players then were unwilling to execute on their own stated desires. I would expect such a game to implode, basically, or else effectively reboot itself.

As for the "one can predict their performances will resolve them" I think if I am understanding this correctly then I don't agree. It is by no means certain that the players SUCCEED in acting out their character's goals. This is in fact the essential nut of play! Play to Find Out! That's what it means. Dare to dream, put your money on the table, and be prepared to lose it! Otherwise what the heck are you here for, go play yourself some Neo-Trad where the outcomes are dictated by the players! (more or less).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think you are evading the issue. Yes, a conflict resolution game could be constructed in such a way that it mitigates the issue, by simply avoiding the use of conflict resolution to answer the sort of questions that would lead to this sort of a complication. But considering that the safe opening which definitely is prone to this conundrum was your example, I doubt they consistently are built this way. Furthermore, mysteries often are about people.

Well, give an example! I am going to tell you that, in my GMing narrativist play, this has never been an issue. If there was something I had established, and PbtA games generally DO have some of this, that I can always look at a higher operational level within the fiction and find a more general goal of the character that can be advanced by a success, even given that I've already established that the fiction predicates failure in the most immediate sense. @pemerton addressed this quite skillfully in the example you are criticizing when he suggested that the PC might find leverage in the safe, even if not the very thing he was after. Success is still within reach. After all, a single success in AW doesn't indicate everything the character ever wanted has been achieved at all levels, right? They are better off than before, for sure, but its EXACTLY the purpose of the GM to pace things, you still have more obstacles to real success, but you've moved forward.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Anyway, my point about "secret backstory" was that in DitV the GM does not "retain" the secret backstory, require the players to declare and resolve low-stakes actions to obtain it, and use it to defeat action declarations. The GM actively reveals the town in play. So that backstory that was hitherto secret becomes revealed.

In case there was some confusion on this point anywhere, DitV as a system CARES NOTHING ABOUT opening safes! If some sort of information does or does not exist in the safe, either way the player simply opens it, revealing whatever backstory, such that conflict can happen. You don't need to dice for this stuff, its not the point of play. The conflict will come when, papers in hand, the PC confronts the Mayor with the evidence of his theft of town funds. THAT is a conflict!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Can a game provide mechanics that depending on how they are used be what you term-drama resolution in some cases and conflict resolution in others?

That is does drama and conflict resolution define the system itself or specific instances in the system?

Don't get side-tracked with all this. Conflict resolution, there's a conflict, different things could happen and different characters want these different outcomes. Sure, what action the character performs will be relevant to how a conflict is resolved, or which conflict is even being addressed, if any. That doesn't make resolution about the performance! Resolution is about settling the score. Did I win or did I lose in this situation? This can be dramatic, hopefully it IS dramatic, but the drama is an emergent effect, one that is desired and aimed for by this sort of play, but not something that is being 'resolved' (how would you resolve drama, it is a trait of a situation, not a thing).

 

[pemerton]

In case there was some confusion on this point anywhere, DitV as a system CARES NOTHING ABOUT opening safes! If some sort of information does or does not exist in the safe, either way the player simply opens it, revealing whatever backstory, such that conflict can happen. You don't need to dice for this stuff, its not the point of play. The conflict will come when, papers in hand, the PC confronts the Mayor with the evidence of his theft of town funds. THAT is a conflict!

Although if the safe doesn't want to be opened - eg it contains the deeds of title that the sinners have hidden, so no one can contest their use of the building for their dark purposes - then the GM can set the Demonic Influence as the opposition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Although if the safe doesn't want to be opened - eg it contains the deeds of title that the sinners have hidden, so no one can contest their use of the building for their dark purposes - then the GM can set the Demonic Influence as the opposition.

Ah, well, I have certainly NO first hand DitV experience. That's interesting, so there's a kind of 'man against environment' kind of thing there, with it being a kind of an almost active malevolent force. I can see how that would be both a useful device and an interesting aspect of play from a narrative/milieu kind of perspective.