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: 9093404" data-attributes="member: 42582">"I seem to recall that . . ."In this thread, I think the phrase "player narrative control" has been used only by people saying that they don't want it. I haven't seen anyone use it to describe Dungeon World. I've denied its applicability to Burning Wheel or 4e D&D. This is from post 211, and I've reposed it several times, including (I'm pretty sure) in reply to you:[USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] reiterated this point just upthread (post 2410) in reply to you.The following is from the Apocalypse World rulebook (p 109), and is equally applicable to DW:Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.The reason that AW does not play traditionally, despite using a traditional allocation of tasks, is because of the principles that the GM follows in doing their stuff, that is, in saying things about "the damned world" and what it does. That is why I have repeatedly emphasised those principles: in high player agency RPGing, at least as I am familiar with it, what underpins the agency is that the GM, in framing and in narrating consequences, has regard to player-established priorities for their PCs.As per what I've just quoted from Apocalypse World - which is equally applicable to Dungeon World - it is a RPG. It has a GM whose job it is to frame scenes and narrate consequences. It has players who engage the game by declaring actions for, and generally giving expression to, particular characters from a first person perspective.It's not group improv any more than mainstream D&D is group improv.I've stated it many times - see eg this reply to you: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9091124" target="_blank">https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9091124</a>. I've just restated it. Here it is again:The GM, in framing and in narrating consequences, has regard to player-established priorities for their PCs.I'm reasonably familiar with this sort of RPGing. You are describing the GM engaging in framing, and consequence narration, having regard primarily to their authorship of their world. They provide the dramatic need - via the "multiple threads" - and the players then align the play of their PCs to those - "choose from multiple options".That is not how Dungeon World or Burning Wheel works. In those RPGs, the dramatic needs by reference to which the GM makes decisions about framing and consequences come from the players.(Torchbearer is more of an intermediate case. At least as I've experienced it, it toggles back and forth. It is not as consistently high on player agency as Burning Wheel, though it can be comparable to Burning Wheel for extended periods - eg my last two sessions of Torchbearer were indistinguishable from Burning Wheel as far as player agency is concerned.)</blockquote>

Verification