Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7389604" data-attributes="member: 42582">Your (2), (3) and (4) all rest on the premise that the GM has already established the details of the setting, or is the only one with authority to do that. You then come out and say as much in the last two paragraphs.I don't think it can be controversial to say that, under those circumstances, the players have at best modest authority over the content of the shared fiction. And also that a significant component of play will involve the GM telling the players about his/her world. This is what "discovery" will involve.Now the original point I was making, which I want to reiterate, is this: it is possible to move away from that sort of GM authority without the players having to do anything besides declare actions from the character point of view. That was why I gave the example of the Circles check: I can declare a Circles check without having to depart from the character point of view (As we ride alongside the river, I keep my eyes peeled for any signs of members of my order, or their passage.)The technique that permits moving away from that sort of GM authority yet allows players to declare actions from their PC point of view is to have robust mechanics for things like Circles, Lore, Perception, Searching etc which allow actions to be declared by players, and adjudicated by GMs, without anyone having to know in advance what the resulting content will be. So the "discovery" becomes mutual between players and GM: everyone is "playing to find out" what exactly the setting is, and contains.So consider the example of the Circles check. The rules of the game (Burning Wheel) say that base obstacle is 1. I am looking around for signs of any members of my order, or their passage. That falls under the category "The NPC is somewhere local to you, and it is an unusual location for him/her, and you make contact in the current game session" (which is +2 Ob) but not "The NPC turns up here and now, however unlikely or in an utterly unlikely place" (which would be +3 Ob). That is an overall obstacle of 3.My PC's base circle rating is 3 dice. I have a +1D reputation (last knight of the Iron Tower) and a +1D affiliation (Order of the Iron Tower) which are both relevant in this context, making it more likely I will meet members of my order. So the final check is 5 dice against an obstacle of 3, a 50% chance of success (ie at least 3 of the dice showing 4+) before any dice pool manipulation by spending fate or persona points.If the check succeeds (as it actually did when I declared it at the game table), then my intention is realised and I meet a knight of my order. If the check fails then, by the rules of the game, the GM has two options to choose from: the PC meets no one; or the PC does meet someone (perhaps the sort of person sought; perhaps someone different), but they are hostile or opposed in some fashion. The GM who takes this second option is expected to make the enmity speak, in some fashion, to the agenda and dramatic needs of the PC. So had my Circles check failed, the GM might have decided that I do meet a member of my order, but someone who is angry at me (the last knight of the Iron Tower) for having allowed the order to come to an end; or the GM might have decided that I meet someone who is hostile to my order. If the GM couldn't think of anything interesting along those lines, or already had some other idea in mind for what was going to happen in the game before I declared the Circles check, then he is allowed to simply say that nothing happens, but generally that's the more boring option.This is one example of how a consistent, "living breathing" world can be built up out of the resolution of players' action declarations for their PCs, in a way that (i) gives the players, as well as the GM, significant agency over the content of the shared fiction, but (ii) does not require the players to do anything but declare actions from the point of view of their PCs.</blockquote>

Verification