Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9331222" data-attributes="member: 85870">Why is it so difficult for some to differentiate the presence of certain pieces of content within a scene and what is at stake in a scene?Say, for example, a PC has entered into a jousting tournament. The presence of a duke and his daughter in an observation box, the duke's loyal knight dressed in tournament regalia to fight the PC, an audience of village peasants and royal observers, and a jester are all content of the scene.But what's at stake?Say the player says, "If I win this tournament, I expect to have an opportunity to meet the duke's daughter, alone, in the castle gardens to discuss the duke's plans related to his sworn enemy, Baron Updike."In Ironsworn, the player invokes a Compel move to "Charm, pacify, barter, or convince" the duke to allow this visit---even if the duke isn't aware of what will be discussed. The player describes the persuasive action, perhaps with some banter, swordplay, and flattery.If the Compel succeeds with a strong hit, the rules clearly state that the person who has been compelled will "do what you want or share what they know." At this point, the GM has now, by rule, agreed to these stakes assuming the other parts of the Compel move are met ---If the GM disagrees that the stakes are relevant, then the GM can suggest or revise how far the duke is willing to assent to the player's declared intent. But once the stakes are set, it is imperative on the GM to faithfully maintain the intent if the player succeeds---even to the point of "revising" or "introducing" elements of the fiction that maintain fidelity to the player's declared stakes in the outcome. In trad/GM-driven play, there are no mechanics that can compel the GM to agree to a set of relevant stakes and then adhere to them upon success. If the player wins the tournament, the GM is, BY RULE (or lack thereof), not bound to the stakes. (S)he can introduce some other complication or "thing" that derails the intent. The GM may decide that despite the duke's intent, the daughter refuses to meet with the PC. The GM may decide that it's "realistic" for the duke's guards to take offense at the PC and waylay him/her before the meeting ever happens. The GM may decide that the duke's archrival murders the duke's daughter before the meeting happens. There's any number of ways the GM might "decide" that to "maintain game world fidelity" that the PC's meeting with the daughter never happens. Instead of looking for ways to evolve the fiction in a way that fulfills the outlined stakes, the GM subverts them through any dozens of means at his/her disposal to further "the story" in the way the GM sees fit.Now of course, can a 5e / trad GM follow the same guidelines and adhere to the player's declared stakes? Of course! But there's no rule or compulsion other than "GM thinks this is interesting." Whereas Ironsworn constrains the fiction that the GM introduces to maintain fidelity to the player's success. Or of course the GM can ignore the constraints placed around the Compel move entirely. At which point the GM has ceased playing Ironsworn and is temporarily playing some other game, because the GM is no longer playing by the agreed-upon rules.To avoid this sort of compulsion, in 99% of my experience with D&D 3e and Savage Worlds (when I'm not GM-ing), the GM just sets the stakes for individual actions or scenes to be incredibly low, basically never allowing the full realization of a player's intent, and instead puts up road block after roadblock, since simply giving the player their declared success is somehow "boring" or "easy mode" or "emblematic of the wussification of Gen Z" or whatever.</blockquote>

Verification