RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

Restating he can is not answering how he can do this. I think if we can’t say how then he likely cannot.
Two approaches have already been outlined, and there may be others.

Diegetically - "They've a worried look on their face and they say - I saw the Supervillain take the Will out of the safe yesterday noon."​
Non-diegetically "I'm going to say that the Will isn't in the safe."​

Due to the premises of play, GM does not scruple to actively disclose it, and does so as play compels.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I disagree. Established myth is simply not secret. It MAY be not yet known to the players because it hasn't become relevant to anything yet, but it isn't generally speaking secret. Revelation of such fiction is not predicated on mechanical resolution mechanisms (at least not on 'fortune' based ones). So no issue exists. Again, Gygaxian Hangover.
I agree with you here, except for the last sentence. It could be tradition or habit, but there are also robust modes of play in which established myth can be secret and its revelation depend on resolution.

For me the lesson is - be conscious of and make decisions about your premises of play. Again, it's lusory-goals, -means and -attitudes. Say what they are and ensure your game text has utility to them. Sometimes that includes saying how you will extend or overwrite the text.
 

I agree with you here, except for the last sentence. It could be tradition or habit, but there are also robust modes of play in which established myth can be secret and its revelation depend on resolution.
Oh, I totally agree, in the context of Gygaxian (or neo-Gygaxian) play, which is probably the majority of all RPG play today, there's no question it is the primary technique. I'm only commenting on how the unwritten assumptions attendant to that become so ingrained that these long discussions ensue.
For me the lesson is - be conscious of and make decisions about your premises of play. Again, it's lusory-goals, -means and -attitudes. Say what they are and ensure your game text has utility to them. Sometimes that includes saying how you will extend or overwrite the text.
Yeah. I think this is why I have really appreciated both 4e D&D and Dungeon World (and its ilk), as well as BitD and TB2 (and probably would appreciate others in a similar way). These are systems which are totally up front about things. There's no obscuration of the grounds of play at all. In order for a GM in these systems (granting 4e can go both ways) to play in a way that does not present the stakes clearly and explicitly they have to undermine the clear intention, or even the words of, the game text.
 

Two approaches have already been outlined, and there may be others.

Diegetically - "They've a worried look on their face and they say - I saw the Supervillain take the Will out of the safe yesterday noon."​
Non-diegetically "I'm going to say that the Will isn't in the safe."​

Due to the premises of play, GM does not scruple to actively disclose it, and does so as play compels.
this is why I said to be specific about the binding myth. Neither of these cases have a binding myth of ‘the will is currently in the safe’

I’m talking about an example with the premise that the binding myth of the will is in the safe and you are giving me examples of non-binding myths about the will being in the safe.
 

Question -
How does the GM actively reveal the fact that the will is in the safe before the players open the safe?

If an NPC tells them, fictionally how do they know it’s currently still there? How do they know the NPC isn’t lying? Etc. in short - how is this a true reveal of binding myth?

I think what actually happens in play is that binding myth is very rarely something that can be preemptively revealed to the PCs. The PCs must go to the location to sense firsthand the thing that was described, because until then it’s not binding. *One can get around this with meta reveals of such binding myths but that’s not how most RPGs are played. Most treat anything revealed indirectly to the PCs as non-binding until the characters can directly ‘see it for themselves’.
If (i) the players are playing DitV, and (ii) the GM has a NPC tell the PCs something, and (iii) the GM does not provide some cue of the sort Baker refers to in the rules text that I've quoted upthread, then (iv) the players know that the thing they've been told is true.

They know this in virtue of knowing the rules and principles of play.

I could see a scenario where the lack of the papers in the safe where the players assumed them to be would act as a reveal of betrayal, which in turn would challenge the beliefs of a character. Someone they trusted turns out to be a traitor, leading them to a wrong direction, or worse (but dramatically better) to a trap.
As I've posted, this would be a consequence of a failed action, where the framing of the action put betrayal and the documents at stake.

To use the language of Apocalypse World, it would be a hard move by the GM, which is warranted either (i) by a 6- roll where the move in question follows from the fiction, or (ii) by the players handing the GM an opportunity on a platter (eg perhaps they dare a powerful NPC, over whom they have no leverage, to remove the documents from the safe, and the NPC duly does so).
 

this is why I said to be specific about the binding myth. Neither of these cases have a binding myth of ‘the will is currently in the safe’

I’m talking about an example with the premise that the binding myth of the will is in the safe and you are giving me examples of non-binding myths about the will being in the safe.
I don't understand what you are asking for here. That is, suppose in my prep of some Narrativist game I decide that there's a will in a safe. This is 'binding myth' right? Now, in that case, what would be the issue? Either the PCs do or do not ever get to the point of looking in said safe, and either way said will is established to be there. It may even be that the players never engage with the whole "where is the will?" question, they are not going to encounter the will at all, and certainly not outside the safe.

I'm not seeing where there would be a problem... If you are going to say "but some player is going to force the GM to put the will elsewhere" there are 2 answers to that. 1) the GM will tell/have told the player where the will actually is, that is that it is not plausible for it to be in location X, and 2) if the player is asserting some intention to accomplish some will-related thing on the basis of it being somewhere else, then the specific form of their assertion can be discussed, probably in the context of 1 above! Either way, given that the game is not ABOUT 'find the will' it is likely that everyone will be on the same page about it. Heck, maybe the GM just ignores their prep! I mean, that's probably a bit of a miscue on the GM's part to have prepared things in such a way that this would be the simplest solution, but stuff happens.
 

As I've posted, this would be a consequence of a failed action, where the framing of the action put betrayal and the documents at stake.

To use the language of Apocalypse World, it would be a hard move by the GM, which is warranted either (i) by a 6- roll where the move in question follows from the fiction, or (ii) by the players handing the GM an opportunity on a platter (eg perhaps they dare a powerful NPC, over whom they have no leverage, to remove the documents from the safe, and the NPC duly does so).
Yes, that certainly would be a one good way to do it. And this relies on low myth, assuming we are making the check at the moment we are at the safe, thus retroactively establishing that the PCs were given false information earlier by a person who now retroactively is established to be a traitor.
 

How can this be done?
So the question is, how can the GM narrate the fiction they have prepped to the players?

There are at least a few ways:

*The GM can just tell the players;

*The GM can narrate a NPC telling a PC;

*A PC may find something that reveals the information;

*The GM can narrate a PC recalling something.​

The following actual play report - from Burning Wheel play - contains examples of each of the above; I've bolded them, and will elaborate after the quote:
Aedhros knew something of the valuable cargo being carried by the vessel, from his and Alicia's theft of information from the harbour office, and decided to try and take some more valuable items surreptitiously, without Thoth noticing. Successful Scavenging (with FoRKs for Inconspicuous and Sleight of Hand) enabled him to grab 2D of loot.

<snip the collecting of the corpse from the ship>

Aedhros had helped collect the corpse, and also helped with the Taxidermy (using his skill with Heart-seeker), but was unable to help with the Death Art. He was reasonably happy to now leave the workshop; and was no stranger to stealthy kidnappings in the dark. I told my friend (now GMing) that I wanted to use Stealthy, Inconspicuous and Knives to spring upon someone and force them, at knife point, to come with me to the workshop. He called for a linked test first, on Inconspicuous with Stealth FoRKed in. This succeeded, and Aedhros found a suitable place outside a house of ill-repute, ready to kidnap a lady of the night. When a victim appeared, Aedhros tried to force a Steel test (I think - my memory is a bit hazy) but whatever it was, it failed, and the intended victim went screaming into the night. Now there is word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant.

<snip further details of what happened to Aedhros that night, and of his return to Thoth's workshop and preparing for the attempt to re-animate the corpse>

The dice were now rolled for the (careful) Death Art test, with 7 successes needed to raise the body from the ship as a Walking Dead. Only 6 successes (on 9 open-ended dice, with a Fate Point spent) were rolled, and so it failed. Looking at the GM advice for failed Death Art, I rolled an unwelcome summoning result, and something weird and creepy scurried out into the darkness.

And then, at that very moment - acting carefully, and failing, licenses a time-sensitive complication - there was a knock on the door. (How this door relates to the secret door onto the docks is not quite clear, but can be resolved in due course.) Serap, the maid servant of Lady Mina, had been told that Thoth was a surgeon whom she might be able to afford, to treat her mistress. She had 1D of coin to offer; Thoth insisted on 3D, and opposed Haggling checks were made (her rank 3 vs Thoth's Beginner's Luck) and they were tied, which I had agreed prior to rolling would be a 2D compromise. She paid the 1D now, and the rest would be paid after treatment.

Serap led Thoth, and Aedhros, through the streets. She had an initial shock when Thoth's sustained Wyrd Lights were revealed to be magical motes of life, rather than candles cleverly suspended from the ceiling, but only hesitated rather than swooning. The group arrived at Lady Mina's house, a grand one but past its prime. The staff were only an old watchman, and Serap. Most of the windows were in darkness. But a candle was lighting an upstairs window, and there in her sick-bed was Lady Mina. And sitting beside her, to provide religious comfort, was Father Simon. It was Father Simon who had suggested Thoth to Serap, and he now greeted him as a surgeon.

Father Simon is a NPC from earlier Burning Wheel play: the evil priest in Keep on the Borderlands, a death cultist who goes about disguised as an educated and erudite priest of the mainstream faith, who hears the confessions of noble men and women. Thoth is a Death Artist, a lifepath from the Death Cult, and he recognised Father Simon (as narrated by me as GM) and tested his Death Cult-wise (as declared by my friend, playing Thoth), to see what he recalled about this priest. But failed.

I thought about this. Although Thoth has some connection to the Death Cult, he has no affiliation with the cult, and so - as I discussed with my friend, the player of Thoth - this certainly raised the prospect that Thoth and the Cult might have some sort of unfinished business. This hung over the rest of this situation, which was the rest of the session.

Thoth performed Aura Reading on Lady Mina, and determined that she still lived, giving him +1D advantage on his surgery. Aedhros also helped with the Song of Soothing. But the test failed. And it had been performed carefully, which licensed a time-sensitive complication: I told Thoth's player that, even as he was trying to save the life of the Lady Mina, the guard George had regained consciousness and fled the workshop.

<snip further play around the dying of Lady Mina>

Lady Mina passed away.

Thoth then declared his intention to take her corpse away for disposal, and this triggered an intervention from Father Simon. He wanted her to be laid to rest in the city catacombs, with her ancestors; and there was also a sub-text of imposing Death Cult discipline on Thoth. This was a Duel of Wits, and Father Simon - a 7-lifepath burn with a heavy social emphasis and a good range of FoRKable Wises, Histories and Doctrines - succeeded with no loss to his body of argument. In the denouement, he chastised Thoth for his cavalier approach to the collection and treatment of corpses, at odds with the teachings of the Dark Gods from beyond the stars - who promise eternal life - and putting them all at risk. Evidence of this included the shadow from the void waiting outside, should Thoth try and return home in the darkness rather than waiting for the sun to rise.

And so the session ended with Thoth agreeing to come to the catacombs
In order:

*In a previous session, with a successful check (on Research and/or Accounting, from memory), Aedhros and Alicia (two PCs) had found records of the ship's cargo in a harbour office. Hence I, as Aedhros's player, knew that there were valuable to be looted once we were on the ship.

*When Aedhros's attempt at kidnap failed, the GM told me - the player - the consequence, namely that there was now word on the street about a knife-wielding assailant. The snipped details include Aedhros having to bribe two guards who, having heard that word, tried to take him into custody.

*Father Simon is a NPC who has figured in previous Burning Wheel play with the same participants as the session I'm reporting on. In my role as GM, I told Thoth's player that he recognised Father Simon as a priest of the Death Cult who masquerades as an ordinary priest.

*When the attempt at performing surgery on Lady Mina failed, I as GM told Thoth's player that, having spent so much time on the attempt, George - a kidnap victim who had been unconscious in Thoth's workshop - had regained consciousness and escaped.

*Father Simon told Thoth about the shadow waiting outside. The threat of the shadow had already been established by the failed Death Art test, plus further GM narration (not recorded in the play report) that while walking to Lady Mina's house, Thoth's Wyrd Lights kept the shadow away from the characters.

*Father Simon told Thoth that he would take him to the catacombs. As the play report indicates, this was the outcome of Thoth losing a duel of with Simon. So this is a binding consequence, and Thoth's player knows that when (in the next session) Simon is leading Thoth somewhere, that place will be the catacombs.​

As I've mentioned upthread, DitV takes a different approach to prep from Burning Wheel. But the basic techniques the GM uses to convey the established fiction to the players will be much the same.
 

Yes, that certainly would be a one good way to do it. And this relies on low myth, assuming we are making the check at the moment we are at the safe, thus retroactively establishing that the PCs were given false information earlier by a person who now retroactively is established to be a traitor.
I don't see why it has to be low myth.

I mean, if a NPC is removing the document from the safe, following a foolish dare by the PCs, then it follows that - as per prep - the will was in the safe. Which the players presumably knew, when they dared the NPC to move it!

To me, it seems that you have some premise in mind that is not visible to me. I don't know if the following reply to AbdulAlhazred will help elicit it?
I'm not seeing where there would be a problem... If you are going to say "but some player is going to force the GM to put the will elsewhere" there are 2 answers to that. 1) the GM will tell/have told the player where the will actually is, that is that it is not plausible for it to be in location X, and 2) if the player is asserting some intention to accomplish some will-related thing on the basis of it being somewhere else, then the specific form of their assertion can be discussed, probably in the context of 1 above!
So just focusing on DitV, there are not action declarations of the form The will is in such-and-such a place. Or even I seem to recall that the will is in such-and-such a place. (Contrast, says, a Burning Wheel Wills-wise check.)

That's why if falls onto the GM to use their powers of coordination of the fiction - which NPC appears where, and says what; how the NPCs respond to the PCs going places and doing things; etc - to actively reveal the town in play so that the players can clearly grasp what is at stake in any given conflict.

This would fall under your (1). Perhaps with a dash of (2) if the players talk so quickly that the GM is struggling to get their (1) out.
 

this is why I said to be specific about the binding myth. Neither of these cases have a binding myth of ‘the will is currently in the safe’

I’m talking about an example with the premise that the binding myth of the will is in the safe and you are giving me examples of non-binding myths about the will being in the safe.
Apologies, I took you to be seeking myth that the Will is not in the safe! Do you mean that you want an example of binding myth that the Will is in the safe, but then it turns out not to be?
 

Remove ads

Top