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: 8635518" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, I've claimed that some of it might be, just as I know that there has been AD&D "story now" play. But I've also said I don't think it can be typical, given I don't see it discussed.Perhaps you're playing "story now"? I don't know, I am only trying to go on a few fairly abstract descriptions of your play.Does it matter that the PCs are doing this? Or is it more like bribing the Ogre in B2 play to have it help us beat the Orcs - a move that is primarily an expedient one, with no meaning beyond that?Suppose that a question thrown up in play is, will the PCs ally with the djinni, or try and rebind them in their ancient prisons? (<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/session-report-reposted-pcs-stave-of-the-dusk-war-by-negotiating-with-yan-c-bin-and-defeating-the-tarrasque.490454/" target="_blank">This happened in my 4e game</a>.)So what is at stake here is freedom vs prison, chaos vs order, elemental air vs other elements, etc. (I hope it's clear enough that these things are not all discrete, but intertwine both in the fiction and by way of metaphor, theme etc.)Why has a scene been framed in which these are the stakes?Other examples have been posted by me upthread. Thurgon and Aramina argue about whether she should repair his breastplate - what is at stake is his capacity to protect her, his control over the agenda of their journey, whether or not she is subordinate to him in some fashion, but also his dependence upon her. Why is a scene framed in which these are the stakes?Thurgon meets his brother Rufus - and Rufus is cowed, serving "the master" and unwilling to aid Thurgon in his goal of liberating Auxol. Later on, after failing to change Rufus's mind, Thurgon meets his mother Xanthippe - and she is old, and tired, and berates him for having left her for so long and urges him not to leave her again. Why are scenes framed in which these things, in which Thurgon's ties to his family conflict with his aspirations for his own and his family's glory, are the stakes?In "story now" play, the answer is - because that is what the player has established as salient, relevant, compelling, <insert suitable adjective here>. There are very many ways for a player to do this - via PC build, via action declaration, via informal signals at either of those points, via out-of-character requests or remarks, etc. But it is a hallmark of "story now" play that the player is the one who establishes the context for, the meaning of, the salience of, the relevance of, etc, whatever it is that is at stake in a situation.This goes all the way back to my doubt that a curiosity about dragons triggered by seeing "here be dragons" in a GM's notes or map is a hallmark of "story now" play. Perhaps on the odd occasion it is - seeing the GM's note triggers or crystallises some idea of the players, about what would be thematically compelling. But far more typical, I think, is that the player in this sort of case is curiously exploring the GM's fiction, and inviting the GM to establish the context for the stakes of particular scenes.I want go back to your Exalted story about the Deathlord. As I understand your account of it, you (and most of the table) didn't think that anything was as stake during the monologue - it was intended just as colour to support the framing of the conflict between PCs and Deathlord. But your player injected stakes into the situation, which - via their play of their PC - they had made salient; and they made a choice that - as you seemed to describe it - shocked the table.Maybe the allying with the harpy was like that? From your account I simply can't tell.In "story now" typically there won't be the putting on of boots or the ordering of drinks. This is the point of the principle "cut to the action". Burning Wheel expressly follows Vincent Baker in DitV: "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Here is the quote of Baker (from DitV p 138, under the heading "Drive play toward conflict), found on p 72 of BW Gold edition:If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs. Sooner or later - sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis - they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.The "someone else" will typically be a NPC the GM has authored, and in these games the GM is doing that having regard to the basic principles for framing, which are to introduce elements, circumstances and stakes that speak to whatever it is that the players are making salient in the way I described just above.What counts as a judgement? I'm relying on the intuitive idea that some fiction has, or makes, a "point" and some doesn't. Edwards drew the contrast when he referred to the pages of description of military hardware in a Clancy thriller. Edwards also refers to an "engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence". Human relationships. The nature and meaning of life and death. Law vs chaos. Loyalty vs betrayal. Valour vs cowardice. Justice vs mercy. Tradition vs change. The place of hope in the universe. These are just some of the core, recurring, themes of fantasy and hence the sorts of things one might expect in FRPGing. There are myriad ways of particularising them, elaborating on them, bringing them into play, responding to them.<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/" target="_blank">Here are some examples</a> that Edwards gives:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Do love and marriage outweigh one's loyalty to a political cause?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and stories of all sorts.</li> </ul>And here are some points of contrast, made with reference to vampire RPGing:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Character . . . What does it feel like to be a vampire?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Situation . . .  What does the vampire lord require me to do?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Setting . . . How has vampire intrigue shaped human history and today's politics?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">System . . . How do various weapons harm or fail to harm a vampire, in specific causal detail?</li> </ul>I hope that's clear enough.To me, your question is the same as asking at what point does a story prompt prevent an author from expressing their vision? I don't see how there can be any mechanical answer.Sword and sorcery pulp doesn't seem problematic. Nor does "you are members of the rebellion". Whereas "you are heroes of the rebellion" seems to me to already answer the questions that game is most likely to pose.Given that the fundamental act of RPGing is authoring a shared fiction, and that who does this in accordance with what principles is what marks the basic differences between RPG experiences, knowing how declared actions are resolved is pretty fundamental to understanding what sort of game is being played.As it stands, that's not a description of "character driven play". Where and how do the characters figure? Players making choices within a fairly traditional sandbox seems to fall under the description of "the players decide they want to do something, and then the story is about that".</blockquote>

Verification