Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8238417" data-attributes="member: 42582">I would call those starmaps notes. Doubly so when coupled with the half-a-page or so per world, which (as per Classic Traveller conventions) sets out basic information about the physical, social and economic aspects of the world.They serve two main functions in play. One is to inform framing of actions - eg if the players are at Byron and want to travel to Olyx and their starhip is Jump-1 then they will have to make two jumps, via Enlil. This feeds into a resource minigame - each jump takes time which generates salary and maintenance costs, and also requires fuel. It also establishes fiction that can inform subsequent narration - the more time the PCs spend in jump space, the more feasible it becomes for me as GM to narrate changes that are taking place in the larger world without that seeming overly contrived.The second function relates to or builds on that last point: the starmaps and notes provide fictional material to draw on in other aspects of GM narration. For instance, Enlil is a low-tech world. Ashar is a high-tech world and very cold. When the PCs spoke to a religious leader on Enlil, and learned (i) about a particular talisman having come originally from Ashar, and (ii) that in the Enlilian religion the realm of purity and virtue is a cold place, this suggested the possibility of a deeper connections between those two worlds and that the religious doctrines on Enlil might be sources of information about "higher", scientific/high-tech truths about Ashar. Which fed into the alien-civilisations-and-psionics theme of the campaign.Because I am contrasting two sorts of play experiences, I think that feel and actuality run together here. The way that the game feels "protagonistic" is because the players can see their thematic concerns for play expressed in what I am narrating (see eg the stuff just above about Enlil and Ashar). If that wasn't there it wouldn't feel protagonistic. And that being there is sufficient for it to be protagonistic.In AW, the GM is expected to develop "fronts", which is - roughly - notes on antagonistic groups/forces in the setting which have agendas they are trying to bring to fruition. When the GM has to narrate a complication, if in doubt or uncertain s/he should look to the fronts s/he has prepped.For instance, if a player has his/her PC who has encountered a NPC try to read the situation, and the check fails, then the GM might have the NPC turn on or taunt the PC in some fashion that is giving effect to one of the fronts s/he has prepared. The GM would then add that NPC to her list of characters associated with that particular front.In Burning Wheel, the GM doesn't prepare "fronts" in this way and rather is expected to draw upon what is implicit in the PCs Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Affiliations, Reputations and Relationships. As an example: the wizard PC in the game I GM was broke, and wanted work from the sorcerous cabal of which he is a member. I can't now recall which of us decided that the leader of the cabal was Jabal; I do know that I narrated Jabal living in a high tower (in my mind, inspired by REH's Tower of the Elephant). The player made a Circles check, which failed; and so the only word that came from Jabal was a visit from his servitor Athog telling the PCs to leave town. None of this was preconceived, but it followed from the logic of the fiction having regard to those relevant PC attributes (Beliefs about gaining resources, Traits like Base Humility, the Affiliation with the cabal, etc).I would say that BW is less "sandboxy" than AW. Hopefully these short examples give a sense of why. But both have this in common: the GM does not use prior conceptions of the fiction to determine if action declarations succeed or fail. Rather, it is success or failure on checks that then constrains the narration of the fiction that follows.The previous session had ended with the PCs in Castle Hill, having resolved the problem of the Lord of Castle Hill's missing Crowmaster. I was the one who narrated talk among the people of Castle Hill of a powerful knight who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle - and so far unbeaten.This is the basic logic of Prince Valiant - by default the PCs are knights errant, and the GM is expected to establish situations that will permit deeds of errantry.The stats for the knight, which make him a candidate to be the best in Britain, and his name (Sir Lionheart) I took from a scenario in the rulebook (it is the second of three Challenge from a Knight scenarios). The player inferred, from my portrayal of Sir Lionheart, that if unhorsed he would insist on continuing on foot; and my portrayal drew (inter alia) upon the following passages in the scenario write-up:Personality: Hot-tempered, violent, honest. Sir Lionheart is a proud and warlike knight who has spent years training fanatically. He fears only defeat or humiliation. . . If irritated in any way while jousting or fighting, Sir Lionheart will immediately challenge the knight who insulted him to a fight to the death to preserve his honor. . . If he is defeated in a joust, he will be furious. Only a Courtesie or Fellowship success with a Difficulty Factor of 2 can stop him from challenging his opponent to a fight to the death. If he kills someone, he will be ashamed of his fury and wish to aid the deceased knight’s family. If he is defeated in personal combat, he will give up his armor, weapons, and horse in shame. He hasn’t been beaten yet, however.It was this same information that informed my adjudication of the attempt by the squire to go past him. Had the opposed Presence check failed, then I think I would have had Sir Lionheart respond in an angry and perhaps deadly fashion to (what he would have taken to be) the slight.I think that this counts as discovering a "world" - or at least a character - that I was presenting. Because it falls on the "protagonism" rather than "exploring the GM's world" side of that (rough-and-ready) divide, I don't think most sandboxers would think of it as counting as a sandbox. In dramatic terms, the NPC knight served as a foil for the player of the squire to express and develop his conception of  his PC.I will give answers from two systems that I know fairly well: Burning Wheel and MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic (which I have used to play fantasy games, including <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/middle-earth-lotr-rpging-using-cortex-heroic.670013/" target="_blank">a MERP/LotR game</a>).In Burning Wheel, the default approach to meeting with the Duke is a Circles check. So first the check would have to be framed: if its already established in the shared fiction, at the table that the Duke is somewhere else out of contact then the check can't go ahead. Likewise if the character does not have Noble Circles (eg because of being a commoner) then the check isn't possible, and some other approach would be needed. The next step in framing is to set an Obstacle (= difficulty) for the check. There are rules that govern this, based on how immediately the player wants the audience to be, and how specific the NPC is whom s/he wants to meet with (obviously the Duke is very specific; contrast, say, "a noble of the court"). There are also rules that reflect how likely the desired NPC is to be where the PC is or is prepared to go to (so eg the check is easier if the PC is prepared to go and wait at court for an audience, then if the PC is hoping to encounter the Duke riding past right now). It is not part of the rules that the GM is allowed to set the difficulty based on whether or not s/he wants the character to meet the Duke. And unless it's already established at the table in some way, it would be unsporting at best to adjudicate the likelihoods by reference to specific notions like "this is the time of the assizes and so the Duke is probably travelling through his lands". The way that that sort of thing would come in, rather, is as a response to failed checks: so if a player tries to augment the Circles check by making a Court-wise check, and the latter check fails, then the GM might narrate that now is the time of the assizes, and hence it is likely the Duke is away, and hence the difficulty is stepped up from what it might otherwise be.If the check fails, then the GM can narrate this as s/he thinks appropriate given that the player isn't going to get what s/he wanted for his/her PC. I gave an actual play example earlier in this post. The chamberlain saying that the Duke is away for 3 months would be a similar example. Whether it is fair to say 3 hours or 3 days or 3 months will depend very much on the pacing and "passing of time" dynamics of the game.In Cortex+ Heroic, there are two main ways to meet the Duke. One is to spend a Plot Point to establish an appropriate Resource (in our game that would be a Social resource). There are rules that regulate when this can be done: either during a Transition Scene, or if the GM rolls a 1 on one of his/her dice. The GM has no veto power, though is allowed to work with the player to establish fiction-appropriate narration of the Resource. The other is to establish the Duke as an Asset in an Action Scene - mechanically this is no different from any other resolution in an Action Scene (eg inflicting Stress on an opponent so as to defeat them). The GM has no veto power here, any more than - per the standard D&D rules - the GM can veto a player's declaration of an attack during combat. The GM can make it harder to establish the Asset by spending GM-side resources (Doom Pool dice) in opposition. In the fiction, this would reflect a sense of foreboding or particular challenge surrounding the endeavour. (In our LotR game, Doom Pool dice also represent the workings of the shadow.)If the attempt to establish an Asset fails, narration of the Duke being out of town might be possible but would be mere flavour. Until the scene is resolved, it's not impossible that the attempt may not succeed on a subsequent try, which might then be narrated as the Duke's sudden return (which is consistent with MHRP's comic-book aspirations). In some circumstances if a check fails the GM can introduce new complications into the scene - these could include a hostile Chamberlain, if that made sense within the broader established fiction.In our MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic play we have seen the Resource approach used for this sort of thing, but I don't recall an occasion where an Asset has been established taking the form of a social connection.EDIT: I just saw this:In Burning Wheel, there is a general principle called Let it Ride. So consequences are relatively hard to overturn. In your example, the starting point is that the player has to suck it up that the Duke is away, and find another approach to whatever it is that s/he's trying to do.In Cortex+ Heroic, there is much less rigidity around the fiction and it is based much more on give-and-take. If the GM narrates the Duke's absence then maybe next time the player tries to establish, as an Asset, The Duke has returned unexpectedly! This different framing of the Asset might affect what abilities the player can put into his/her pool, or how it feeds into some other aspects of the system; and if the GM has established a hostile Chamberlain that that could factor into the GM's opposing pool (all checks in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic are opposed).</blockquote>

Verification