Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7372230" data-attributes="member: 82106">Of course you can fail! Addressing the dramatic needs of the character is not the same as a plot where the character always succeeds. It would be perfectly apt for this goal to slip out of the character's fingers. Probably, if its really done in a cool way, it will represent the resolution of some sort of character flaw or a price that the character paid at some point, that is a consequence of their previous actions. A key NPC will betray them because the PC injured her, or maybe the character will realize some higher goal or aspiration. Maybe giving up his dream to be king because it is in the better interests of the people, and 'Nobility is more important than Kingship' or something. It is always possible to address various themes in a game like this too, maybe such a thread runs through the whole game! It could be the REAL underlying conflict, between duty and ambition, etc.In terms of finality of resolution, I look at it much like action movies. Again I always go back to Raiders of the Lost Ark as sort of the archetypal pattern. There ARE reverses, Indy and Marion find the location of the ark and then the Nazi's show up and take it away. In game terms that might be a FAILURE to find the ark (a failed check). It would be an example of 'fail forward'. A true success doesn't get reversed. When Indy gets the head of the Staff of Ra, he's achieved something that is never reversed. Even though the bad guy has half the inscription burned into his hand he's still missing the final clue. This presumably was acquired in game terms by successful action resolution.In terms of quest to become King, the PC would maybe undermine his rivals, and each one so disposed of would no longer represent a threat. They wouldn't pop back up and suddenly be in contention again. The NPC might still play another part in the action, but only as a defeated rival. There wouldn't be some unrevealed backstory that subverted or reversed finalized actions. If such an NPC DID become a rival again it would be as a consequence of specific events which happened within the continuing narrative based on further actions and checks made by the PC/player. It would be EXPLICIT, although it is perfectly fine if the narrative explains it in terms of factors the PC didn't know about at the time. The key is that in no case would the defeated rival simply reappear due to factors happening offstage which didn't involve the players in any way that they could understand or have a chance to control. At most it might be something like "You hear word from your spies that Baron X is attempting to raise an army in his home province! What do you do about it?" or something like that. If the answer is 'nothing', well maybe the guy becomes a threat again, but in game mechanical terms its really a NEW threat. In terms of games you can do either one of these things with Story Now. Its merely a convention of the specific game and table conventions as to how you approach RPG play. You could establish a game with episodic characters where each independent story arc resolves in one session if you want, there are games like this.  In fact I'd say they are almost entirely story telling games of some sort. As soon as you invoke persistent characters you start to have longer-term play. In Star Trek Captain Kirk is bounded in his actions by the dictates of Star Fleet. In a purely episodic game he could just ignore them, but in an ongoing game he has to factor in the consequences of defying orders. One way to play an episodic Star Trek would be to make the PCs less significant characters. Instead of playing Captain Kirk, you'd play some minor character, or even a character that appears only for a single episode. The players work out the story for the visit to that 'planet' (or whatever it is) and the resolution of those character's interests, and then next time MAYBE they reuse some of them, and maybe not. A TNG RPG OTOH would have the PCs as ongoing characters, probably always crew members or some such. They could be the ship's officers or lesser characters depending on the setup of the game, it wouldn't really matter too much. I'd think being the bridge crew would be the standard setup. This is how the old FASA Star Trek game worked. It was a pretty good game actually, the semi-episodic format of classic Star Trek lent itself pretty well to a series of adventures. I wouldn't say it was a Story Now type of system though, more similar to CoC or something like that.Exactly, you aren't interested in Story Now. It was just posited as the starting point for the discussion of World Building at the start of the thread. I disagree that there is any 'railroading' in (1). The player established the terms of his agenda, not the GM. How could it be railroading? The game is about what the player decided it would be about. All the GM is doing is describing a scene in which the player's agenda, what he WANTS the scene to be about, is realized. It could hardly be MORE a matter of player agency, unless you want to go to a 'conch passing exercise', which IMHO isn't really even an RPG in most cases (IE players author content jointly or something like that).(2) OTOH is an example of GM agency at its utmost. The GM is deciding where the character is and what he's engaging with, and there is no regard there for any player input, at least not in any formal explicit way. If the GM considers what the player wants it is entirely HIS choice to engage with it, or not. The player can choose the action of his character, but he isn't even guaranteed to be able to acquire enough information to make a choice that relates to his agenda, let along actually engage it directly. He may well simply be left engaging with some GM constructed plot and setting elements that were created without any reference whatsoever to what he wants to do. This is in fact the definition of 'sandbox'! Sure, the players can then start to try to construct some kind of engagement with their own interests, but they're STILL dependent on the GM to go along, and the GM has potentially infinite reserves of plot power (IE arguments based on some sort of 'causes') with which to move the plot in any direction he desires.Now, in (1), the players agency is NOT absolute, the GM determines the details of the scene frame and thus initial fictional positioning at each point, BUT the scenes will address things that interest the players. In (2) there's just no guarantee of anything. While a 'good GM' may find it wise to give some credence to player agendas this is by no means universal nor consistent IME. I've played in games where the action followed a direction almost entirely of the GM's choosing. Skillful GMs CAN very definitely make this work, but it isn't the same at all as (1).Again, I don't think that Story Now dictates that the PCs can never be in the position of looking for information. Sometimes, given the positioning they are in, it may be a fine option. I will say again that in my own rules system there ARE 'interludes', which are really designed for this sort of thing (sometimes an SC works too, it depends on whether there are significant stakes or not). Usually what I find is that the dramatic pacing and player signals will indicate when such a point has been reached. Often its quite obvious, and something like a montage is generate. The character acquires some training, goes up a level, establishes some social contacts, arrives at a new location, etc.Exploration is fine, but most explorers have a goal in mind. At the most extreme end of the spectrum it might be 'play tourist', but then chances are, after some 'tourism montage' perhaps, the action arrives at "and as you step out of the carriage 4 scruffy men armed with daggers jump out of the ally and demand all your money!" Are you going to surrender the cash needed to be a tourist or fight? Or maybe its a little more subtle, the police knock at your door. "Why were you in the Louvre this morning? Did you see this man? Come down to the station with us right now!" I mean, sure, if you REALLY want a game about being a tourist, I'm not averse to that. If its PURELY that, then maybe a Story Now type of system isn't ideal? I just think these cases are pretty contrived. Having played RPGs of all sorts for decades I can certainly say that there should be some 'meat' and I'm going to want it to be the cut of meat I ordered up. I WANT the GM to be creative and produce evocative scenes and generate plenty of backstory and revelation and whatnot in play, I just don't want to have to deal with endless wandering around in irrelevant details. Only so much fiction can be generated in each gaming session. Lets make it relevant fiction, IMHO.</blockquote>

Verification