Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8634004" data-attributes="member: 42582">I've told you. I've posted actual play examples. You haven't responded to them.In my Prince Valiant game, in the course of 14 sessions, the PCs saved a noble family, settled a peasant revolt (prompted in part by the fact that the players helped a rich abbot against Robin Hood-types), founded an order (aided in part by the friendship with the abbot), formed a warband, left Britain to the mercy of Saxons while travelling across Europe, took control of a Duchy (with the aid of a different peasant revolt), received gifts from the Emperor in Constantinople, and are currently at war in Cyprus. The players are the ones who made the choices about who counts as a villain and who an ally; who is worthy of helping and who not; to convert the undead and lay their bones in a reliquary rather than try and destroy them; etc.In basic structure it's standard scene-framed play. It's not as visceral as what (eg) [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s preferred approach to character driven play, but neither is it as purely situation-driven as The Dying Earth defaults to. The situations combine generic tropes and themes of knight-errantry with particular elements that are likely to speak to or engage with the players' evinced concerns for their PCs.In the context of my 3 points, (i) the players have changed the setting via their play of their PCs - a new order, new alliances with Constantinople, control of a Duchy (by way of marriage) and a gift from the King of France, etc; (ii) the players chose their PCs' dramatic needs - to found a warband, to save a PC's marriage, to convert rather than kill; (iii) the players chose their evaluative responses/judgements, expressed via their play of their PCs - sometimes loyal, sometimes expedient, sometimes merciful, generally not overly radical. There is no worldly nor any cosmological process that "judges" what count as right or wrong answers, or that tells them which peasants and bandits deserve sympathy and which are varlets. The players make their own calls, and play flows from that.That is what relatively low-risk "story now" play looks like.Here is an example of higher risk "story now" play, from a single session of Burning Wheel (I was the player):In terms of my three points, (i) I changed the setting - Xanthippe is ready to join with Thurgon in liberating Auxol, (ii) I chose Thurgon's dramatic needs (around his family and his heritage) and I chose Aramina's dramatic needs (around her self-doubts, her resulting cynicism, and her relationship with Thurgon), and (iii) I chose the responses - to Rufus, to Xanthippe, and in Aramina's case to the miracle. There was no system imperative or GM imperative establishing right or wrong choices or attitudes, or predetermining how the interactions between the various characters would go.This is what "story now" play looks like, for me at least. The players are in the driving seat; the GM frames and facilitates. That faciliation includes presenting the players with circumstances that require their PCs to make value-laden choices. And there are not "right answers" - as I quoted from Vincent Baker (DitV) upthread, I think in reply to you, the GM does not "play god" or impose their own judgements. Play results from the cycle of framing, choice, action and consequence which in turn leads to new framing built upon those consequences.If you are playing 5e D&D in this sort of fashion, you could tell us about it!</blockquote>

Verification