Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7344571" data-attributes="member: 85870">That's . . . a pretty accurate assessment. I think that is generally @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>'s position. It may not veer into "introducing entirely new elements" most of the time, though, but merely "re-frame an existing element based on character action declaration and resolution."I think you perceive this as negative, but from my view this seems accurate. The whole point of avoiding "secret backstory" is exactly to avoid the kinds of "red herring," pixel-witching, auto-negating GM style that lead to little enjoyment for anyone except the GM, who gets to feel pleased with him/herself at how cleverly they're building a sense of "the unknown."Maybe----if the PCs have earned the right to that framing, AND it fits a dramatic need to set that framing, AND it serves to make play enjoyable for all.Ah, see, this is where things slightly go off course, because you've forgotten what you said upstream earlier---that in player-driven play, they have the ability to add, inject, or reframe portions of the framing. And again, this all assumes they've earned the right to "act within" the framing, and it meets dramatic need. So, I think you're starting to conflate "illusionism" with "player-driven" here. The point of player-driven play is, if the dramatic needs and prior action declarations of the PCs haven't merited framing a scene where they're looking for the map, then why are they looking for a map? If they're not even supposed to be there (based on dramatic need), does it make any difference if they're allowed to search one side of the hall versus the other? If the scene frame isn't appropriate, giving them a false sense of agency by letting them search both sides of the hall seems a pretty poor compromise. The idea here isn't to deny the GM the ability to frame challenges. If (s)he wants to frame a "pass the guards" challenge or a "successfully sneak through the hallways undetected" challenge, great! As long as the scene frame represents appropriate dramatic need.The point is to allow the players the freedom to potentially re-frame the fiction based on their action declarations and successful mechanical resolution. How many of us have played games where we've attempted to sneak past those guards, only to have the GM say, "Great, you all succeed on your Stealth checks, but you didn't see the magical trap just inside the door, so you've alerted the guards."Yep, it's happened to me. Almost exactly like that. Huge build up to sneaking past the guards, only to have that success totally negated by hidden, unknowable GM backstory. Whereas, player driven play would say, "You've earned your success, and because you've earned your success, as GM, I'm to allow the next scene frame to move you past the guards, and closer to resolving your dramatic need."It's a mindset more than anything. Yes, if you as GM really want to play out that piece of hidden backstory, and the magic trap now calls down the guards, and the PCs are now farther away from fulfilling their dramatic stakes, cool. Go right ahead. Totally your call. I just know for me, I no longer find that kind of play interesting in the least. Hmm, this seems a fairly threadbare argument. In player-driven play, the player has the right to say to the GM, "I think we've earned the right to move past this small, incremental bit of minutiae that's not terribly interesting to me, and get to the heart of our dramatic stakes, don't you think?"In a GM-driven game, the most likely response to that query is, "Stuff it."Which of those choices offers more "player agency"?If your group has agreed that the smaller, incremental decision style is a fit for you, great . . . but are you REALLY sure your players have agreed to that contract? Because my last Savage Worlds fantasy campaign where I was a player and not a GM, I had no say in setting the dramatic stakes, and I found large swathes of that campaign tedious and boring. And if the GM had asked me about it, I would have told him so.</blockquote>

Verification