Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9037864" data-attributes="member: 85870">I posited this idea because when Rule Zero + hidden backstory are both in effect, ultimately it is the GM's job to eliminate standstill. The players can only guess for so long at the hidden backstory elements that are preventing them from achieving their goals. A Rule Zero GM must at some point break the barrier by either providing new vectors of information, or reframing scenes in a way that make new player action declarations possible.This is interestingly no different than the stated GM agenda&nbsp; for PbtA play ---&nbsp; &quot;adhere to your GM principles and make your moves&quot;.The difference is that PbtA provides&nbsp; additional player side authority to largely eliminate stalemate play from appearing in the first place.But in Rule Zero play, it's all on the GM. (S)he is fully responsible for developing valid game states that grant the ability for players to make action declarations.If the goal is to avoid stalemate / &quot;rowboat world&quot; play, a Rule Zero game must rely on the GM. I think one of the reasons sandbox play has largely never taken over as the primary mode of play (vs. trad) is that GMs regularly fail to recognize this responsibility. If you take away player inputs to change the fiction, then some other inputs must fill in. Yet IME &quot;rowboat world&quot; GM-ing is largely the result of sandbox play, because it appears to offer &quot;You can go anywhere!&quot; freedom while slyly subverting control of the available actions to nearly exclusively the GM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 9037864, member: 85870"] I posited this idea because when Rule Zero + hidden backstory are both in effect, ultimately it is the GM's job to eliminate standstill. The players can only guess for so long at the hidden backstory elements that are preventing them from achieving their goals. A Rule Zero GM must at some point break the barrier by either providing new vectors of information, or reframing scenes in a way that make new player action declarations possible. This is interestingly no different than the stated GM agenda for PbtA play --- "adhere to your GM principles and make your moves". The difference is that PbtA provides additional player side authority to largely eliminate stalemate play from appearing in the first place. But in Rule Zero play, it's all on the GM. (S)he is fully responsible for developing valid game states that grant the ability for players to make action declarations. If the goal is to avoid stalemate / "rowboat world" play, a Rule Zero game must rely on the GM. I think one of the reasons sandbox play has largely never taken over as the primary mode of play (vs. trad) is that GMs regularly fail to recognize this responsibility. If you take away player inputs to change the fiction, then some other inputs must fill in. Yet IME "rowboat world" GM-ing is largely the result of sandbox play, because it appears to offer "You can go anywhere!" freedom while slyly subverting control of the available actions to nearly exclusively the GM. [/QUOTE]

Verification