Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9331198" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know what this means. The notion of what is at stake in a scene is about the player of the game. It's a concept that sits in the same general domain as literary criticism: like, we ask what is at stake for a protagonists.In the context of RPGing, if we're establishing and resolving stakes for NPCs, then we've left player-driven RPGing way behind in the rearview mirror!To make the same point by reference to actual published games: the GM in BW or in DitV can't "say 'yes'" to a NPC's declared action; in AW the GM never rolls the dice - Seize By Force, Go Aggro and Seduce/Manipulate are rules the players invoke, that resolve stakes for their PCs.He and I have both answered this: by "the nature" of the fiction, [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] meant whether or not what is at stake, and the thematic nature of resolution (assuming resolution has some thematic nature), is established unilaterally by the GMI still don't know what this means. Like, what sort of narrative is organic to books? Off the top of my head, I think of four books: The Woman in White, The Quiet American, Myself and Marco Polo, and Ulysses.Or to films? I think of Black Panther, The Seventh Seal, Citizen Kane and Ashes of Time.Similarly, I have no idea what narrative is organic to games. Or even to RPGs.It's not true that, ordinarily in a sandbox, the players decide what's at stake in a scene. Very often this is established by the GM, as part of the process of keying the sandbox.What process are you talking about here. Free conversation? The player declaring and succeeding on a King-wise check? Something else?I still have very little idea what you're talking about.Let's consider a game of AW. The player is playing The Driver. Previously, some roll they made failed and the GM made a hard move - the (NPC) hardholder confiscated the PC's car. So now the player goes to confront the hardholder: "I want my car back!" It's a charged interaction, and so the player rolls to Read a Person. Being a Driver with +2 sharp, they succeed and so, over the course of the conversation, obtain an answer to the question "How could I get your character - the hardholder - to give me back my car?" That answer comes from the GM, playing the NPC. The rule note (p 201) that "“Dude, sorry, no way” is a legit answer to “how could I get your character to __?” But it is legit for the GM to have this be the answer from their NPC hardholder? Well, the rules tell the GM to be a fan of the characters, and p 114 elaborates thus:The worst way there is to make a character’s life more interesting is to take away the things that made the character cool to begin with. The gunlugger’s guns, but also the gunlugger’s collection of ancient photographs — what makes the character match our expectations and also what makes the character rise above them. Don’t take those away.So the GM is not going to have the hardholder say "Dude, sorry, no way". The hardholder will say whatever it is that they say, that also fits with the GM's agenda and principles. As a move, it will most likely be providing an opportunity, with a cost. But perhaps it will be something else - say, announcing offscreen badness - "Sure dude, you can have your car back. I mean, it's not like it's any use now. Overnight Dremmer's gang snuck in and emptied out all our tanks - there's not even a litre of petrol left in the hardhold."But let's say the GM's move is to offer an opportunity - the hardholder says "Sure, you can have your car back, if you <do this thing for me>". Of course the GM, in deciding what the <thing> is, will have regard to the agenda and principles - so it won't be an arbitrary fetch-quest.And now the driver PC says, "Sure, I can do that, but just show me my car's OK in the meantime." And the GM makes a soft move in response, providing an opportunity right upfront: "No probs, come with me, I'm taking good care of it". And so the NPC takes the PC to where the car is garaged, and the player says "I get behind the wheel, and I say to the hardholder 'I can <do this thing you want me to do>, but I'm gonna need my car to do it'" And that's an attempt to Seduce/Manipulate, and the PC - being The Driver - gets to add their car's looks to the roll. And depending on the roll, maybe the PC gets to drive out right now in their car!I have no idea whether that counts as your A, your B or your C. Contra [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER], it involves no "meta-acausal" whatever: it's just the player saying what their PC does, and the GM saying what happens next having regard to the rules of the game. But it's player-driven. And obviously is completely different, in processes of play and in play experience, from the example of the Curse of Strahd railroad that I linked to upthread.</blockquote>

Verification