Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7392550" data-attributes="member: 42582">That's not a very precise description of my game.I've already said that I run RPGs along the lines of Eero Tuovinen't "standard narrativistic model". That means that, as a GM, I establish situations (= frame scenes, if you prefer that terminology) which I intend to be thematically compelling in virtue of the demands and pressures they place on the PCs' evinced dramatic needs (= agendas, goals, or beliefs, if you prefer that terminology).I've linked to many actual play reports showing how this is done, in a variety of different systems, which use a range of different methods for evincing PC dramatic needs (some formal, some informal), for constraining GM scene-framing, for managing the narration of consequences (especially the consequences of failure), etc.How do you do this? I know it's not like me, because every time I post an actual or imagined example of how I might do it you argue that I am doing it poorly - eg you object to the fire giant example because it "cheapens" travel through the Underdark; you object to the feather-in-the-bazaar example because the player doesn't have to "work" to find the opportunity to make a decision about acquisition of a potentially useful item; in general you object to "going where the action is" because it doesn't treat the (presumably pre-authored) gameworld "neutrally".You don't get to tell me that what I do is wrong, and then assert that you do exactly the same thing. So what do you actually do? Give me an example of how you actually achieve thematically compelling story arcs.Your examples where Pippin seeks out Farimir in Osgiliath and Pippin joins the army of Gondor. Those aren't thematically compelling moments. What responses do you expect the GM to make? Clearly not the sort of response I would make as GM, because you keep telling me that I do it wrong. So how would you do it?To pick up on [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s example, how do you decide if Pippin, in the army, is or isn't posted to sentry duty? If he is, how, then, do you provoke a thematically compelling choice? What would that look like? How do you do it without having regard to the player's evinced agenda for the PC? How do you do it while treating the gameworld "neutrally"? Post an actual example!No one is disputing that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s players enjoy his game. But there is no evidence that characters in Lanefan's game undergo story arcs of the sort found in JRRT. Lanefan himself has said as much - eg his PC who hopes to be a senator (i) probably will not get to attempt that in play, and (ii) will become an NPC if it succeeds, because the party will be off on other non-Senatorial adventures.You say "opportunities will knock". Who establishes them - player or GM? If player, how is that different from the idea of "agendas" which you are rejecting? If the GM, how is that different from what AbdulAlhazred and I have already described as the player choosing from the GM's menu?****************************************And on Eero Tuovinen on backstory:And given that that difference is fundamental, I don't see why you keep eliding it.You also seem to ignore the fact that checks can fail, with the consequences that ensue from that.And to repeat, again - making a check is not authoring backstory, as Eero Tuovinen uses that term. It is not preauthoring, and it is not a heuristic proxy for pre-authoring.You have completely misunderstood [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s point.AbdulAlhazred is not making the (absurd) claim that the content that is backstory is not part of the gameworld. He is saying that what makes that content backstory is af fact about when and/or how it is authored. Backstory is stuff that is authored outside of play or is generated during play using heruistics that are proxies for pre-play preparation.Stuff that is established by the players in the course of play is not backstory. And Eero Tuovinen doesn't call it backstory, either. <a href="https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">He says</a> "I think that mixing narration sharing uncritically with backstory-heavy games and advocacy-model narrativistic games sucks". The reason it sucks, in his view, is because having the player establish the fiction that constitutes framing, or consequences, is at odds with the dynamics of player character advocacy in a "standard narrativistic" game: "[the standard narrativistic model] works, but only as long as you do not require the player to take part in determining the backstory and moments of choice."Eero gives a number of examples, some pertaining to framing (eg the ToC and "orcs in the next room" examples) and some pertaining to consequences (the 3:16 example looks like this, and likewise some aspects of the ToC example, if finding a clue is treated as consequence rather than framing). In discussing one framing example (ie the NPC declaration of parenthood of the PC) he says that it won't work for the "standard narrativistic model" because "a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters."Now I don't think all the games in Eero's examples are in fact "standard narrativistic model" games (eg ToC is not, and nor is default D&D), and nor does he - but that doesn't weaken the point, which is that the sort of stuff taking place in those examples may not fit well with the standard narrativistic model.In the previous sentence I used the words "may not." That is deliberate: Eero is not a fetishist. He is not fetishising GM authority over backstory - he even notes that he designed a game without it (Zombie Cinema). He has a particular concern expressed in concrete terms: certain sorts of player authorship of framing and consequence are at odds with the "standard narrativistic model".Now, quite a way upthread it seemed that some posters, including [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], took the view that any player impact on the fiction is too much (and hence violates the "Czege principle"). But clearly this is not what Eero Tuovinen thinks. He says, in the "standard narrativistic model", that "The player . . . makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules". So action resolution is (unsurprisingly) something that he takes for granted. Player choices can impact the fiction, by leading to consequences.Some consequences - "I killed this orc in front of me" - are consequences that, in the fiction, are aptly described as purely causal consequences of the PC's action in the game. (We could quibble with this: part of the reason the swordblow kills the orc is that the orc has a certain biology, and the PC didn't make that the case. But we can probably take this to have been implicitly or even explicitly established as part of the framing.)Other consequences - "I found a secret door in the wall in front of me" - are not. They implicate gameworld elements that (i) were not already established at the table (ie the players didn't know about them), and (ii) the existence of those gameworld elements is not a causal consequences of the PC's action in the game (ie the PC didn't build the secret door).Are consequences of the second sort problematic narration sharing? That is, do they have the adverse effect upon the player's interaction with the GM's framed scene that Eero identifies?It is obvious that there is not single answer to this question, because it depends on what counts as thematically compelling with respect to the framing and consequences. And hence on what will count as anti-climax or as deflating the tension, vs what will ensure that the game has teeth.Let's consider a concrete example. Suppose that the PCs have come to a city looking for information, and the GM establishes that there is a temple in the city that might be helpful to them. So the GM tells the players, "You've all heard of the Temple of the Moon. Do you want to go there to see if they have the information you're looking for?" That is an exercise of backstory authority. It doesn't matter whether the GM came up with this idea years ago, and has been waiting to use it; or whether the GM came up with it on the spot - it is presented as something that is to form part of the "arena" of play. It is not itself a product of play.Now suppose one of the players responds, "I've heard rumours of these Moon cultists - it's said they sneak out of their temple on the night of the new moon, to kill the unwary who linger out of doors." That's not backstory. It wasn't preauthored. And the player isn't generating it using some proxy for preauthorship. Clearly, the player is making a move in the game.Should the game permit this move?We know, from this thread, that in [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s game, that is not a permissible move by a player. At best, s/he can ask the GM "Do I know any rumours about the Moon cultists?" The main reason Lanefan gives for this is that inconsistencies will arise if players are allowed to make these sorts of moves. There also seems to be a strong aesthetic preference, that players are only allowed to declare moves whose consequences would be (in the fiction) entirely the causal outcome of the PC's actions. And this move (if successful) would not satisfy that constraint. But notice that Lanefan's constraints have nothing to do with the "standard narrativistic model". So they don't tell us whether or not, if your goal is that sort of RPGing, you should allow this move.Eero Tuovinen gives an argument that it is probably not a sound move to permit in an investigation-focused game, because it is the player making up his/her own clue. [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has disagreed, not far upthread. I don't have a strong view on who is right out of Eero and Abdul, because I don't run investigation-focused games. All I'll add on this point is that investigation-based games run on the basis of strong pre-authorship of clues are likely not to conform to the "standard narrativistic model" because a number of scenes and consequences are likely to be driven by a concern with finding out rather than thematically compelling, choice-provoking situations.It's clear that there is no general reason why this should be an impermissible move. It doesn't leech the excitement out of the game, or produce an anti-climactic result. And it is a permissible move in Burning Wheel, where it would be resolved as a Wises check (it could be made on Temples-wise or Cultists-wise or Moon Cult-wise, at the discretion of the player subject to the ultimate adjudication of the GM and probably with different obstacles depending on the skill used). If the check succeeds, then the rumour is true. If the check fails, then something else is the case, adverse to the PC's interests. Because my example hasn't provided much information about those interests (other than that the PCs want information), it's not easy to suggest a good narration for failure. But a Burning Wheel GM who finds him-/herself in that situation can easily "say 'yes'" to the action declaration, so that the scene of the action changes from the temple to its cultists who are abroad on the night of the new moon.Suppose the player instead says "I've heard rumours of this Moon temple. There is always a secret way in and out, that is illuminated by the light of the first full moon following the Autumn Equinox." Should that be a permissible move? Again, in Burning Wheel it would be - a Wises check, perhaps augmented by Astronomy and Architecture. (And on a failure, perhaps the PC recalls that the secret way in and out is not only in that particular position, but can be opened only on that particular night when the moon is high in the cloudless sky.)In Cortex+ that could be a resource established by a character with Religion or Lore specialisation, by spending a plot point.Does it tend to leech out excitement? Create anti-climax? No. There is nothing anti-climactic about breaking into the Moon Temple by way of a secret entrance.Suppose that the player makes that declaration not when the GM first mentions the temple, but when the PCs are in the temple, with the main entrance cut off by angry Moon cultists. So the player is trying to establish an alternative way out. Is this anti-climactic? No - there is nothing anti-climactic about finding a secret way out and escaping that way. (Note that in Cortex+ Heroic this would be an action scene, and so the resource could only be established by spending the point when the GM rolls a 1, ie when there is already stuff going on and the GM is rolling dice for the opposition to the heroes. So the player can't do it "for free".)TL;DR: Eero Tuovinen isn't just going on a rant about what is or isn't OK for action declarations. He's talking about who should be in charge of framing and consequence narration. A player declaring "I search for a secret door that will get us out of here!" isn't establishing his/her own framing, nor narrating the consequences of the situation. It's no different, in terms of its basic implications for the situation, from declaring "I kill them all so we can get out of here."</blockquote>

Verification