Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7401472" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is not a genuine contrast.Consider the <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=4994" target="_blank">Star Wars example</a> linked to in <a href="https://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html" target="_blank">this blog</a>: that GM needed some sort of stats for TIE fighters. That's prep.When I turn up intendeding to run 4e, I bring my MMs/MV with me, or some stats for NPCs/monsters that I've written up. Because 4e likes maps for combat resolution, I'll often have some maps too.When I turned up to run Traveller, I had some pre-rolled planets ready to drop in. (Though, as per a post not far upthread, I rolled the starting world during the session, just as the players rolled their PCs.)When I run Burning Wheel or Cortex+ Heroic, I will write up some NPCs/creatures, because neither of these systems has a MM/MV like 4e does. (Though for Cortex+ Heroic, I have also used MHRP statblocks - for instance, the drow the PCs in my campaign fought were all second-tier supervillains statted up in the MHRP Civil War volume.)"No Myth" isn't no prep. It's about how that prep is used, what it's for, and how the shared fiction is established. <a href="https://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html" target="_blank">The blog</a> sets out the key elements of the approach:* Nothing about the world or the storyline is sacred. The GM must not cheat to keep important NPCs alive or to ensure some specific scene happens. * There is no preset plot; there are preset genre expectations. * Time should be spent on situations in direct proportion to how interesting they are. Boring bits can (and should) be fast-forwarded through. Sometimes this means the player has to say "Back when we were in town I bought new shoes and a pet monkey." * The GM should handle all PC actions by agreeing that they succeed, or working out a conflict with the PC that they can roll dice for. * Every die roll should be significant. Every die roll should have a goal and/or something at stake. * Players should try things.As far as this thread is concerned, there is no significant difference between that list and what Eero Tuovinen has called <a href="https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">"the standard narrativistic model"</a>. One of the systems that Eero refers to as exemplifying what he is talking about is Dogs in the Vineyard. That is not a "no prep" system. It's not "no backstory", either - but as the rulebook for DitV explains, the GM is expected to reveal the backstory as an element of framing (under the heading "Actively Reveal the Town in Play", pp 137-38 ):The town you’ve made has secrets. It has, quite likely, terrible secrets — blood and sex and murder and damnation. But you the GM, you don’t have secrets a’tall. Instead, you have cool things - bloody, sexy, murderous, damned cool things - that you can’t wait to share. . . . The PCs arrive in town. I have someone meet them. They ask how things are going. The person says that, well, things are going okay, mostly. The PCs say, “mostly?” And I’m like “uh oh. They’re going to figure out what’s wrong in the town! Better stonewall. Poker face: on!” And then I’m like “wait a sec. I want them to figure out what’s wrong in the town. In fact, I want to show them what’s wrong! Otherwise they’ll wander around waiting for me to drop them a clue, I’ll have my dumb poker face on, and we’ll be bored stupid the whole evening.” So instead of having the NPC say “oh no, I meant that things are going just fine, and I shut up now,” I have the NPC launch into his or her tirade. “Things are awful! This person’s sleeping with this other person not with me, they murdered the schoolteacher, blood pours down the meeting house walls every night!” ...Or sometimes, the NPC wants to lie, instead. That’s okay! I have the NPC lie. You’ve watched movies. You always can tell when you’re watching a movie who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. And wouldn’t you know it, most the time the players are looking at me with skeptical looks, and I give them a little sly nod that yep, she’s lying. . . . Then the game goes somewhere.This game (DitV) is also, as best I know, has the first clear statement of the tehcnique say "yes" or roll the dice, which is included in the summary of "no myth" techniques.Now that's not to say that we can't talk about different styles of "story now" or "no myth" RPGing - [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is a poster on these boards who (in my view) is able to articulate with some subtlety the difference between the sort of "scene framing" approach I prefer (and that is what Eero Tuovinen and the "no myth" blogger have in mind) and the PbtA approach found (obviously) in Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, etc - which emphasises the scene less, and hence discrete consequences less, and makes following the fiction really closely more important (especially on the GM side, I think).But in the context of this thread, I think those differences are not important. In this thread, it's probably enough to make the following point:Say "yes" or roll the dice is not consistent with traditional, GM-authored worldbuilding for an RPG - because that sort of worldbuidling sometimes leads to the GM saying "no" (perhaps concealing the reason for this with a die roll, like a Perception check or whatever, in which - in fact - nothing is at stake, because there's no secret door, or whatever, there to be found).</blockquote>

Verification