What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Lanefan]

This gets at the heart of the initial post: if worldbuilding (as subsequently defined as secret backstory to preclude PC action declarations) can possibly be used to curtail player agency (for all the reasons ennumerated throughout the thread), but principled play demands that it not be used so (that would result in an abusive GM), what purpose does it hold beyond this possibility.

At first, it sets the scene. After that, it makes sure the scene remains consistent within itself from session to session and gives the moving parts (PC, NPC, historical, geographical, environmental, etc.) a framework on which to operate.

And if player-centered games provide all the same depth of play experiences (as I hope this thread has adequately demonstrated) as secret backstory games, then what other possible purpose can secret backstory hold other than to serve as a GM's ace-in-the-hole to negate player agency and move the game to preauthored concerns?

Those two types of games might provide similar depth-of-play experiences, but I think they're at different ends of the pool.

Secret backstory can provide an avenue to mystery-solving (a major element in most types of play), exploration (one of the three pillars as defined by 5e), discovery (there's nothing better than the 'aha!' moment when the pieces finally come together), and longevity in the campaign.

To expand on that last item: if a DM can spin out the hidden backstory in such a way as to allow the players/PCs to discover bits of it as they go along but always have the sense there's still more to it if they only dig a little deeper, the players - assuming they were engaged in the first place - are likely to remain engaged; and the campaign can go on for ages.

Generally, I'm a huge critic of absolutist frameworks, but I have a hard time negating the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's too easy to convince oneself that juuust this one time nudging things to my GM agenda will make for a better game for everyone. And thus the floodgates may open.

Reading this bit gives me a sense that you not only don't trust DMs in general, you don't even trust yourself as a DM.

As a player, I trust that if the DM wants to bounce us around a bit or force the story she's got a good reason for doing so and is in her own view trying to make a better game for us. I'm also willing to accept that it's not going to work every time, and to shrug it off when it doesn't and just move on within that same campaign. (oftentimes IME the DM will realize something was a bad idea long before the players do anyway, and already be prepared to move on at the fisrt opportunity)

Lan-"DMs are imperfect people too"-efan

 

[Nagol]

But that is not an essential element of player-driven RPGIng. Eg I've repeatedly pointed out that it is not a part of any game that I GM.

Maybe not, but is is an element that exists in many types of player-led gaming. That you don't experience it is immaterial.

I don't follow.

I GMed a session where the player declared "I look around the room fov a vessel to catch the blood." In BW that is a complete action declaratoin. I (as GM) set a difficulty. The check was made and succeeded. So the PC saw a vessel.

That did not require the player to step out of actor stance.

That's the trivial case I didn't bother with. The player made a action declaration in a game where he has the resources to determine success himself. A full declaration would be "I look for a vessel to hold the blood...<dice roll> and find it. So blood has been collected."

And it was immediate world-building on your part! The player did not insert the vessel. You as GM agreed such a vessel had a probability to exist and provided the appropriate guidance (the DC) for determination. The players now have a sense of the likelihood of finding similar items in similar places.

 

[Nagol]

I think it's really telling of the obstinacy to engage the concepts of this thread beyond their preconceived notions by many posters that this still needs restating after more than 1000 posts on the topic!

Obstinacy flows both ways. The force is pulled thin here.

 

[Nagol]

This is a good question. But it does tie in somewhat for the need to define just what the difference is between "worldbuilding" and "secret backstory." Where is the line drawn between them? I think you can do many kinds of worldbuilding that don't directly veer into secret backstory.

A possible useful delineation might be a twist on the old adage, "Never put something in front of the players that you don't actually intend them to interact with." In most cases this is in reference to NPCs, meaning, "Never put an NPC in physical proximity to the PCs unless you're fully willing for that NPC to be attacked and killed."

But there's a hint there of the line to draw between worldbuilding and secret backstory---As a GM, no entity state or state of being within the fiction should ever be assumed when there's the potential for the party to interact with it.

It sounds pretty bold to put it like that, but in my head it rings true.

In other words, do worldbuilding to your heart's content. Create backstories for nations and cultures, create new locations and MacGuffins, create NPCs and treasures to find. Just don't hard code anything that the PCs may actually interact with. Worldbuilding ends the second it intersects with the PCs, even if indirectly.

"But, but, I already decided that the Marquis De Flambon is sending his guards out to hunt the PCs, no matter what!"

"But, but, I already decided that the holy grail is in the castle Aaaaugh, and only the old man from Scene 24 knows where it is!"

"But, but, I already decided that the trap in Hallway 88 in the dungeon is impossible to disarm, no matter how high the thief rolls!"

"But, but, I already decided that Globulus the Demon Blood Gnome can't be killed when he encounters the party the marketplace, because it will ruin my plot!"


By contrast, when I'm GM-ing, my thoughts usually run along these lines---"So I previously wrote down that Event X / End State Y is a possibility here. But is that still the case? Would it make more sense, based on what the PCs have declared and accomplished, for something else to happen? Or is it okay for it to happen anyway, but the reasons for it to happen have changed? Does Event X / End State Y take away from the accomplishments of the PCs? Does it negate some aspect of play or element of the fiction that's already been established? If yes, is that fair to the players? If no, does it still make sense in context here? Or would it make more sense for another, different set of scene frames to open up, based on what's happening in-game and what my players seem to be driving toward?"

Those are the kinds of thoughts I want my GM to be thinking when I'm a player.

The absolute last thing I want my GM to be thinking is, "Well, that's the way I wrote it up and decided it would happen, so . . . yep, that's exactly what's going to happen."

A lot of secret backstory in my case isn't created before the players act: it is created in reaction to PC action. The PCs just haven't discovered it yet. The stuff that is created in advance is stuff like where valuable are stored and what they are, where key items may be, what attitudes a NPC holds, and where things are in relation to one another.

I won't decide the Marquis sends agents after the PCs until the PCs act in a way that induces him to do so.

Is this the only style of gaming? No. Is it a valid style of gaming? Yes.

Is there a reason this style of gaming shouldn't be used? Note I did not ask must everyone use this style of gaming.

 

[Lanefan]

I used to use lots of adventure modules, and still use parts of them. While it's possible to adapt and change such modules to some extent, at some point the cost of extensive changes exceeds the benefit of using the printed module. In all cases the players have specifically agreed to play through the module.

So using printed modules generally involves either placing constraints on character generation, or expecting some PC wastage as players find out the hard way the PC doesn't suit the module, or the PC is killed/crippled/retired/removed from play. The PCs need to be compatible with the module, which might mean having certain generic qualities like "Good or Neutral aligned" or all being enemies of a particular faction. The more cagey the referee is about revealing secrets within the module or game setting, the less specific they can be about the PC restrictions.

None of this sounds like 'neutral DMing'.

A neutral DM either frames the PCs into the module or lets them frame themselves, and then runs it the same no matter what the players have for PCs. This is realistic in that oftentimes the PCs wouldn't know what they were getting into, and if they did somehow have foreknowledge they could make the necessary adjustments while still in town.

Many of the difficulties I have seen in GM-driven gaming is when the GM doesn't properly vet character concepts for the intended game, and so some players end up with incompatible expectations for the game. Things like a rude barbarian concept in a gameworld where it turns out rudeness can be fatal, or a sickly scholar concept in what turns out to be a brutal survival march.

So it gets retired or killed and the player rolls up a new PC.

A player might reasonably say that the referee either shouldn't allow character concepts which just don't fit in a setting, or won't be fun for the player, or at a stretch, figure out ways to allow the character to be viable in the setting.

A word of caution* during initial char-gen is all that's needed: "yeah, the idea here is this is going to be a game-of-houses type of campaign with lots of court intrigue and not much warfare", then let the players roll up whatever they want as allowed by the system and-or houserules.

* - of course, this assumes a system where the DM can even make such a declaration going in; i.e. where the DM can set the direction of a campaign like that.

But with modern PCs often being complex and/or with extensive backstories, possibly with links to other PCs and NPCs, dropping characters and introducing new ones gets more difficult.

That's a system problem.

Solution: don't use those systems.

It should be mechanically quite easy to generate a new PC almost on the fly and get it in the game; backstory and other stuff can wait till later.

I've certainly been in the position of trying to persuade a player to keep playing a PC in a long term campaign when they were getting reluctant or wanted to retire them (to play for a little longer, or permanently). Sometimes this means allowing character alterations or dealing with issues within the game.

Here it's best if each player has more than one PC out there in the gameworld, and can cycle them in and out as the situation (or their own preference) demands.

Lanefan

 

[darkbard]

Ruthless... assault...?

I wasn't characterizing your posts as such. But I don't think this is an unfair characterization of some of the strong pushback.

1) principles play would be to curtail action negation through secret backstory. If it's never used, there's not point. No, instead, that was about the mere existence of secret backstory being enough to mean that the DM will not only occasionally veto a declaration, but that they will instead veto every declaration that doesn't fit their 'choose-your-own-adventure' novel backstory. This is clearly false.

I don't think anyone is making claims about such extreme cases as vetoing every action declaration that deviates from a preauthored secret backstory. But even if several such deviations are allowed by a GM in GM-centered play, as soon as one pushes too far to threaten all the hard work the GM devoted in crafting such secret backstory, is there not the temptation to draw the limit somewhere as to what deviations are permissible?

(2) I don't think player-centered games provide all of the same depth of play experience. I think they provide a different play experience, one that can also be deep. This is a point that many have agreed upon, the chess vs checkers argument. The playstyles incorporate different approaches and goals and so can't provide the same experience because they aren't tuned to do so. You can mix and match a bit, but it's mostly importing some traits into a mostly DM or mostly player driven game.

The two approaches can provide different play experiences--and they do, for sure--while still providing the depths of experience.

But I disagree that there is any consensus with regard to your checkers-and-chess analogy. I would say it's more like Chinese checkers vs. a variant Chinese checkers wherein one can jump gaps as well as marbles, i.e, variants on the same game, not different games at all.

(3) the words you used here 'DM ace-in-the-hole' is exactly the kind of phrasing I'm talking about. This wording implies that the DM is using their backstory not to further play, but to arbitrarily restrict play in a way that is intentional to limit player action declaration. It implies an adversarial relationship where the DM is using the game to control the players, rather than a game where the DM is trying to enable players. You've chosen to frame your argument in a way that says anyone playing that way is just looking to screw over the players and don't want to let go of that power. It's false and exactly why the arguments are rebutted so strongly.




See above -- it's not about never doing it, it's about doing it in pursuit of aiding players, not punishing them. Yet every example presented is one that assumes the DM will use secret backstory to punish players.



A few people have mentioned the matter of trust and this has always been loudly dismissed as unimportant, but I can't read this argument as anything other than a lack of trust. And also a lack of imagination that many DMs don't want to run that kind of game. I mean, if you can find DMs that enjoy running player facing games (many of which incorporation DM fiat rules but then provide principles to not use them arbitrarily) that would imply there are DMs that aren't interested in the kind of degenerate play you argue is inevitable. Why can't there be similar DMs that play in a different style?

When you shift to imagining that those that do not play like you do are all slowly devolving into the worst examples of play because you dislike their playstyle, why are you remotely surprised when your arguments for that are met with strong disagreement? Why are you surprised when those, like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], make those same arguments they're met with strong disagreement?

And yet the brief example I provided was definitively not one of adversarial play but rather the GM believing that vetoing player action declaration due to secret backstory would make for a better play experience for the whole table.

When the issue of trust has arisen, it has been dismissed when it is interpersonal, i.e. between players and GM at the table. What I'm suggesting here--and perhaps I differ from [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], and others--is that any real human being would be tempted to steer play in a certain direction (including, potentially, negating PC action declarations), even unconsciously, if hours of hard work had gone into crafting a secret backstory. Removing secret backstory keeps the GM agenda free of entanglements that may come at odds with player goals in this way. It's not really a trust issue at all.

 

[pemerton]

It's human nature for people who are repeatedly insulted to resist what the one doing the insulting is trying to say. Perhaps if you stopped saying that our style of play amounts to a choose your own adventure book(and other similar statements), you'd get less resistance. That characterization is false and insulting.

I've not said anything about your game. As far as I know, you've posted no examples of your own play.

I've talked about some approaches to play eg "collecting information", in the context of a TTRPG, means "making moves that trigger the GM to say some stuff". If collecting information or "exploration" means something different in your game, then post about it.

 

[Nagol]

I used to use lots of adventure modules, and still use parts of them. While it's possible to adapt and change such modules to some extent, at some point the cost of extensive changes exceeds the benefit of using the printed module. In all cases the players have specifically agreed to play through the module.

So using printed modules generally involves either placing constraints on character generation, or expecting some PC wastage as players find out the hard way the PC doesn't suit the module, or the PC is killed/crippled/retired/removed from play. The PCs need to be compatible with the module, which might mean having certain generic qualities like "Good or Neutral aligned" or all being enemies of a particular faction. The more cagey the referee is about revealing secrets within the module or game setting, the less specific they can be about the PC restrictions.

Many of the difficulties I have seen in GM-driven gaming is when the GM doesn't properly vet character concepts for the intended game, and so some players end up with incompatible expectations for the game. Things like a rude barbarian concept in a gameworld where it turns out rudeness can be fatal, or a sickly scholar concept in what turns out to be a brutal survival march.

A player might reasonably say that the referee either shouldn't allow character concepts which just don't fit in a setting, or won't be fun for the player, or at a stretch, figure out ways to allow the character to be viable in the setting.

To a point I agree, but only to a point. If I see a Pc design I think will be highly problematic or contains elements the player may not have considered, I'll point it out to the player. But ultimately it is his character. Some players want to struggle in specific ways. I won't stop them so long as I believe they made the choice with their eyes open.

Other times, a player will decide to change a character because although he thought he had a niche in the group, actual campaign play varied from his (and my) expected play. The most recent example of this was by modern X-Files' style game where two of the PCs were really strong combatants in what turned into a minimal combat-oriented game. I expected more combat, but the players deliberately go out of their way to avoid and/or defuse tense situations that would otherwise result in combat. One of the two combat PCs retired and a strong psychic investigator replaced it.

Some referees don't spend care about character concepts much and expect these issues to be resolved in game. Others place various restrictions on PC concepts and generation.

But with modern PCs often being complex and/or with extensive backstories, possibly with links to other PCs and NPCs, dropping characters and introducing new ones gets more difficult. I've certainly been in the position of trying to persuade a player to keep playing a PC in a long term campaign when they were getting reluctant or wanted to retire them (to play for a little longer, or permanently). Sometimes this means allowing character alterations or dealing with issues within the game.

In an old Champions campaign, one player was having difficulty finding a character he felt comfortable with. On about his third character, he remarked that the current situation would have been great for his last character and lamented he dropped it a couple of sessions prior. I agreed and pointed out it takes me about 2-3 sessions to integrate all the moving parts from the PCs and I typically create adventures over the course of 2-3 sessions. He stuck with that character and everything fell into place... 2-3 sessions later.

Similarly, in a GM-driven game with extensive pre-prepared gameworld content, where the referee wants the players to access the gameworld through the eyes of their PCs, the players need to be content with that limited interface, and have player and PC goals that are compatible with such a style of play. This may be no sacrifice at all, many players have this as their preferred style of game.

Any style of game requires the players to be comfortable with that style.

 

[darkbard]

Since permerton was replying to me in the bit you quoted above, I'll assume you're directing that at me

Not just you, hawkeyefan, but several others here too. I'm home sick with the flu, so perhaps my patience is more limited than usual, but it feels like at several points this thread has clearly articulated ideas only to have it backslide into questions that have already been addressed numerous times.

But your participation has been thoughtful and polite throughout, so I certainly didn't intend to insult you in turn.

Perhaps no insult is meant....but when people say they feel insulted, it's usually a better approach to acknowledge that rather than question it. I mean, if people are saying they're insulted, questioning that seems to be implying they're lying, which only serves to further the insult, intended or not.

Again, my apologies if you feel I have insulted you in any way. I guess I just don't understand why many posters in this thread seem to think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is insulting their gameplay when he has gone out of his way to articulate his position as a personal preference and to express his opposition to GM-centered secret backstory gameplay as born not of an inherently flawed gameplay mode but rather one that limits player agency. One can certainly disagree with his position (although I think the analysis herein proves pretty convincing), but why take offense at such analysis?

If we can imagine a GM who creates an interesting and compelling story that incorporates or at the very least does not contradict or suppress player goals, then I think that's all that is needed in order for the idea to have merit. Perhaps the Gm has come up with a villain that he has worked into each character's stories in some way, connecting them all but without forcing them along certain paths. The GM has a loose idea of where things will go or what some characters may or may not do, but leaves plenty of room for change along the way. There are pre-authored elements in this case, but I don't think of this as the same thing as a linear style adventure where the characters move along the pre-defined path and do not deviate from it.

It all depends on how these are implemented at the table. If the GM uses such preparation as scene framing or the outcome of failed player action, then we're talking about the same thing: no secret backstory, player-centered gaming. If they're kept secret from the players until such a time as they nullify player goals and actions, then [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION], myself, and other advocates for player-driven "story now" games would take issue, questioning what purpose this serves (as in the OP).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wasn't characterizing your posts as such. But I don't think this is an unfair characterization of some of the strong pushback.

No, dude, just no. You can't defend reckless hyperbole by saying that "ruthless assault," in any way, resembles "strong pushback." You should walk this one back a bit more -- it certainly doesn't elevate the rhetoric in any way.

I don't think anyone is making claims about such extreme cases as vetoing every action declaration that deviates from a preauthored secret backstory. But even if several such deviations are allowed by a GM in GM-centered play, as soon as one pushes too far to threaten all the hard work the GM devoted in crafting such secret backstory, is there not the temptation to draw the limit somewhere as to what deviations are permissible?

No, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] explicitly made this claim. He introduced "choose-your-own-adventure" as a descriptor of secret backstory games. He's been pretty consistent with examples that explicitly go to this.

And, yes, there are "temptations". Are you really claiming that there's no temptation to engage in the Czege Principle in player-facing games? Are you honestly insisting that DM-facing games be utterly free of potential abuse?

The two approaches can provide different play experiences--and they do, for sure--while still providing the depths of experience.

But I disagree that there is any consensus with regard to your checkers-and-chess analogy. I would say it's more like Chinese checkers vs. a variant Chinese checkers wherein one can jump gaps as well as marbles, i.e, variants on the same game, not different games at all.

This fails to get to the common problem with examples in this thread: it's extremely difficult to propose a play example that works both in DM-facing games and in player-facing games. The map is a prime example of this: the action declaration 'I search for the map' isn't the same in both playstyles. In a player facing game, this only occurs when the DM frames a scene where the map can exist -- ie, the declaration is appropriate because the scene framing allows for it to be appropriate, and the DM has obligations to frame the scene so that the declaration is appropriate. At no time with the players in this style game ever be framed into the study when such a declaration isn't permissible. The game 'moves to the action' so to speak, and get right to where you look for the map as a point of crisis.

In a DM facing game, such a declaration can occur in multiple places, and the players are managing other factors of agency in how and where they look for the map among many locations available. They can bring their resources to bear to reduce the available choices and improve success, but if the map isn't where they look (this time) they don't find it.

In a player facing game, the scenes are more like warping to crisis points, so all of the agency is placed in the action declarations to engage those crisis points. In DM facing games, the play is different, as you play the puzzle of the map to find your goals, managing your resources and negotiating the obstacles. Crisis points occur through the play of the puzzle, often in surprising places. Again, player facing games go straight to crisis, while DM facing games allow players to move through multiple locations and allow crisis to generate through player decisions on resource usage and multiple action declarations.

These two styles are pretty different. And I'm going to say that as I think on it more, I'm coming to the conclusion that you can mix and match a good bit, but the core of play exists in one or the other camp -- there's a spectrum, but it's broken into two sides and there's no clear true middle ground. At least, I can't think of a true middle ground, perhaps someone else can show me wrong.

And yet the brief example I provided was definitively not one of adversarial play but rather the GM believing that vetoing player action declaration due to secret backstory would make for a better play experience for the whole table.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what example you're speaking of. I scrolled back up and re-read the post I responded to, and see no example of play. I see you saying that action negation is the DM's ace-in-the-hole to negate player agency and move the game to pre-authored concerns, perhaps that's what you meant?

If so, I, again, point to the usage of loaded phrases as a hindrance to discussion. If you would rather say "DM's ace in the hole to negate player agency" rather than "the DM using action negation in those cases where it leads to better play outcomes" then we may have zeroed in on one of the big issues in the "strong pushback" going on.

When the issue of trust has arisen, it has been dismissed when it is interpersonal, i.e. between players and GM at the table. What I'm suggesting here--and perhaps I differ from [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], and others--is that any real human being would be tempted to steer play in a certain direction (including, potentially, negating PC action declarations), even unconsciously, if hours of hard work had gone into crafting a secret backstory. Removing secret backstory keeps the GM agenda free of entanglements that may come at odds with player goals in this way. It's not really a trust issue at all.

I'm tempted to run people off the road for cruising along below the speed limit in the passing lane, but, to date, no one has been run off the road. And you've, again, moved into claiming that your playstyle is superior because it avoids this problem (it doesn't, but okay). The DM is a player as well, so it's not improper that the DM also has goals for play. The issue is when the DM's goals and the players goal diverge. This can happen, but it is not a necessary outcome of secret backstory. Trying to argue that it is it part of the pushback.

Since play examples seem to be a strange currency for some in this thread, let me relate one from last night:

I prepared an orc encampment. Due to previously established in play information, this orc encampment needed to be threatening to the area (not the characters specifically) but not overwhelming. I prepped a large (60x60) map with a ruined keep (previously established at the base of the orcs) and a ruined village just outside (not previously established). I placed a group of orcs in the keep, and a group in the village. Those in the village were all regular orcs, but the ones in the keep included a shaman of Gruumsh. I did not include a warboss, because that would make the total group of orcs too dangerous to the area. In addition, I placed a few pit traps along access points the orcs didn't regularly use.

Play began. The players sighted the keep from a hilltop about a mile off, and couldn't make out many details due distance and tree cover. They could have directly approached, in which case most of the encounter map would have been a surprise (lots of secret backstory), but instead chose to recon by moving into the woods for a better vantage point. A die roll later and they spend an hour relocating to a better, concealed vantage. From there, they can see the layout of the map (I described it) and that there are two groups of orcs. The players opt to have 2 of their number approach and parley with the village orcs, with one wondering why they were separate from the keep orcs. The rest of the characters opt to sneak in closer to provide support in case the parley goes poorly. The group that sneaks in ends up near one of the pit traps, which they notice through passive checks and avoid.

The parley group approaches and manages to start a conversation. A diplomacy check (failed) causes some tension, which is offset by a successful intimidate check back to neutral. The orcs respond to this by making a demand for tribute, paid to one of the orcs. One of the characters, who speaks orc and so has insight into their ways, makes an insight check to realize that this is typical orc extortion behavior -- a lesser member increasing standing due without the ability to actually negotiate. The parley team then demands to speak to the boss, and finds out that the warboss isn't there, there's a shaman instead in the keep ("livin all posh in the keep"). The players interpret that as the village orcs not liking the keep orcs and the Shaman, and offer to help find the warboss. This is totally offscript (and, actually, has been). I rolled with it, and a diplomacy check later the orcs agreed that they didn't like the keep orcs and the shaman, and if the characters could find the warboss, they'd talk. I extemporized that the warboss went into the dungeons below the keep and never came out, with the shaman being the only survivor and who promptly ordered the stairwell blocked.

Meanwhile, the support crew failed a stealth check and drew attempt from the keep orcs. Right about when the negotiated ended, the keep orcs detected the support team and raised an alarm. The village orcs stayed out of it and the players mopped up the keep orcs with a fun standoff between the Dwarven cleric of Moradin and his spiritual weapon squaring off against the shaman of Gruumsh and his spiritual weapon. The pit traps switched in purpose to keeping intruders out to keeping the two groups of arguing orcs separate. The player then quickly swept the keep upper floors (all the orcs ran out to fight) and preceded to clear the stairs to enter the basement.

So, prepped things: the map, the two groups of orcs, the traps, a blocked stairway to the dungeons. Things that changed because of player: the orcs, the traps, the reason the stairway was blocked and that a warboss actually existed and now is missing.

What kind of play was this? I say it was very DM-facing, with liberal allowances for player generated goals and content based on those goals. I say it's DM-facing because a lot of play is still the players declaring actions and me narrating results, with go tos for the mechanics when the outcome is both uncertain and failure meaningful.