Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7353530" data-attributes="member: 16814">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.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?  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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification