Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You're doing what? Surprising the DM
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6111398" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>It's not a general part of the goals of BW - or of narrativist play in general - for the resulting output of play to have a 'novelistic' quality to it. "Memorability" isn't particular significant, and if you read the discussions in the Adventure Burner of what's memorable from play - player quips and one-liners, dramatic moments, etc - they're pretty indistinguishable (I would think) from any generic RPG experience.</p><p></p><p>As I mentioned upthread, the key word in the phrase "story now" is not <em>story</em>, it's <em>now</em>.</p><p></p><p>I don't know if you read [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s posts a page or three upthread. But they showed an approach to GMing which involves a quite different extent and deployment of authorial power.</p><p></p><p>There have been other examples of different approaches to GM authorial role and power in this thread too, but that's probably the most striking.</p><p></p><p>The authoring in this paticular scene is shared between player and GM.</p><p></p><p>The player contributes the element that his PC is capering along the rail of the bridge. The GM contributes "and does so without falling".</p><p></p><p>The player wants to signal that his PC is a cool acrobat (as I think [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] noted upthread, probably a movie Legolas rip-off). The player's goal is pure colour. The GM is allowing the scene to be resolved as pure colour.</p><p></p><p>If the GM had misunderstood - if the player wasn't going for pure colour - I'm sure that at Luke Crane's table that would quickly be rectified by out-of-character communication! (Which relates to a comment of Ron Edwards's that I quoted way upthread - the GM is expected to take and to respond to player suggestions.)</p><p></p><p>Another element relevant in BW play, however, is that skill/stat checks - <em>tests</em>, in BW parlance - are the key to PC advancement. And the GM is under strick instructions neither to permit nor to engage in test-mongering: that is, players aren't to get tests "for free", but only when the stakes are serious. So in the scene described, another relevant consideration would be that, in crossing the bridge, nothing is at stake and hence tests (and advancement) aren't available. It is <em>mere</em> colour.</p><p></p><p>In GMing 4e a lot of the BW approach could be applied, but this particular aspect of BW play would not be relevant, as PC advancement in 4e isn't a reward in the same way that it is in BW. It is more like a simple aspect of setting (as the PCs advance the setting changes and, in mechanical terms, scales up).</p><p></p><p>And that is not remotely contentious. As I've already mentioned upthread and reiterated in this post, there is no particular connection between narrativist play and "movie-style story as product". (And the comparison that Luke Crane makes to a movie is in terms of emotional response - "it would be like a false note in a bad action movie" - and not in terms of structural composition.)</p><p></p><p>Perhaps the bits of the picture that you're missing aren't in what I quoted, but were in the OP of the BW play advice thread in which you participated - ie that the players author Beliefs and Instincts, in consultation with one another and with the GM, as part of setting up the overall themes and focus of the campaign.</p><p></p><p>So the fact that the ledge and the lost tomb are things that matter will have been jointly established as part of the preparation for play. That's how the GM (not Luke, by the way, in this particular example) knows that the stakes are high and tests are required.</p><p></p><p>I didn't post the whole BW rulebook. I posted a page of advice on "say yes" in response to a request from JamesonCourage.</p><p></p><p>In the other thread on BW play advice I did post more, including on the BW approach to situation framing, "world building" (to the extent that BW contains such a thing), etc.</p><p></p><p>I also posted, upthread, a quote from Ron Edwards on the use of GMing scene-framing power in narratvist play (the key point being - <em>take suggestions</em>) plus extensive passages from an Eero Tuovinen blog explaining <em>why</em> in narrativist play the GM might be given that authority (namely, to preserve a certain sort of control over backstory and thereby over reveals and related narrative devices), and also the various techniques typical in narrativist play for regulating and governing that authority - in BW, these include Beliefs, Instincts and Traits plus the broader set-up phase.</p><p></p><p>A BW GM who uses "say yes" to free narrate through scenes that enliven Beliefs, Traits and Instincts while calling for tests when none of those things enlivened is, by the express word of the rulebooks, <em>doing it wrong</em>.</p><p></p><p>A comparison - maybe it will misfire, who knows, but it seems apposite enough to me: the executive power enjoyed by the President in the US, or by the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Australia, is a direct descedent, in constitutional law and theory, of the pre-1688 power of the British Crown. But to argue that the introduction of electoral democracy makes no difference to the character of the exercise of that authority would strike me as (at least) odd.</p><p></p><p>Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. The player <em>has</em> said what the game is about, namely, it's about that player's peasant PC finding out whether or not he is to be king of the land.</p><p></p><p>If the GM decides, at the start, that "that's ridiculous" then the whole game is a waste of everyone's time. Which is to say, that would be bad GMing, at least as far as BW is concerned. The Character Burner actually has a discussion of a related GMing mistake (the Belief pertained to the resurrection of the PC's dead wife, and the GM let it happen carelessly in the game, almost as mere colour, which completely pulled the rug out from under that player's participation in the game), and cautions new BW GMs against it.</p><p></p><p>This has no bearing that I can see on how Beliefs work in BW play.</p><p></p><p>Beliefs aren't about what's true or false in the backstory. That is negotiated between participants - and elements of it (which Luke Crane calls "the big picture") left up to the GM - prior to starting play. Beliefs are constraints on the GM's framing of scenes.</p><p></p><p>We can't tell whether your approval of your player's backstory is playing any Belief-liek role until we know how the game in which that player particpated revolved (if at all) around his divine heritage, and it what ways (if any) it did so revolve.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6111398, member: 42582"] It's not a general part of the goals of BW - or of narrativist play in general - for the resulting output of play to have a 'novelistic' quality to it. "Memorability" isn't particular significant, and if you read the discussions in the Adventure Burner of what's memorable from play - player quips and one-liners, dramatic moments, etc - they're pretty indistinguishable (I would think) from any generic RPG experience. As I mentioned upthread, the key word in the phrase "story now" is not [I]story[/I], it's [I]now[/I]. I don't know if you read [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s posts a page or three upthread. But they showed an approach to GMing which involves a quite different extent and deployment of authorial power. There have been other examples of different approaches to GM authorial role and power in this thread too, but that's probably the most striking. The authoring in this paticular scene is shared between player and GM. The player contributes the element that his PC is capering along the rail of the bridge. The GM contributes "and does so without falling". The player wants to signal that his PC is a cool acrobat (as I think [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] noted upthread, probably a movie Legolas rip-off). The player's goal is pure colour. The GM is allowing the scene to be resolved as pure colour. If the GM had misunderstood - if the player wasn't going for pure colour - I'm sure that at Luke Crane's table that would quickly be rectified by out-of-character communication! (Which relates to a comment of Ron Edwards's that I quoted way upthread - the GM is expected to take and to respond to player suggestions.) Another element relevant in BW play, however, is that skill/stat checks - [I]tests[/I], in BW parlance - are the key to PC advancement. And the GM is under strick instructions neither to permit nor to engage in test-mongering: that is, players aren't to get tests "for free", but only when the stakes are serious. So in the scene described, another relevant consideration would be that, in crossing the bridge, nothing is at stake and hence tests (and advancement) aren't available. It is [I]mere[/I] colour. In GMing 4e a lot of the BW approach could be applied, but this particular aspect of BW play would not be relevant, as PC advancement in 4e isn't a reward in the same way that it is in BW. It is more like a simple aspect of setting (as the PCs advance the setting changes and, in mechanical terms, scales up). And that is not remotely contentious. As I've already mentioned upthread and reiterated in this post, there is no particular connection between narrativist play and "movie-style story as product". (And the comparison that Luke Crane makes to a movie is in terms of emotional response - "it would be like a false note in a bad action movie" - and not in terms of structural composition.) Perhaps the bits of the picture that you're missing aren't in what I quoted, but were in the OP of the BW play advice thread in which you participated - ie that the players author Beliefs and Instincts, in consultation with one another and with the GM, as part of setting up the overall themes and focus of the campaign. So the fact that the ledge and the lost tomb are things that matter will have been jointly established as part of the preparation for play. That's how the GM (not Luke, by the way, in this particular example) knows that the stakes are high and tests are required. I didn't post the whole BW rulebook. I posted a page of advice on "say yes" in response to a request from JamesonCourage. In the other thread on BW play advice I did post more, including on the BW approach to situation framing, "world building" (to the extent that BW contains such a thing), etc. I also posted, upthread, a quote from Ron Edwards on the use of GMing scene-framing power in narratvist play (the key point being - [I]take suggestions[/I]) plus extensive passages from an Eero Tuovinen blog explaining [I]why[/I] in narrativist play the GM might be given that authority (namely, to preserve a certain sort of control over backstory and thereby over reveals and related narrative devices), and also the various techniques typical in narrativist play for regulating and governing that authority - in BW, these include Beliefs, Instincts and Traits plus the broader set-up phase. A BW GM who uses "say yes" to free narrate through scenes that enliven Beliefs, Traits and Instincts while calling for tests when none of those things enlivened is, by the express word of the rulebooks, [I]doing it wrong[/I]. A comparison - maybe it will misfire, who knows, but it seems apposite enough to me: the executive power enjoyed by the President in the US, or by the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Australia, is a direct descedent, in constitutional law and theory, of the pre-1688 power of the British Crown. But to argue that the introduction of electoral democracy makes no difference to the character of the exercise of that authority would strike me as (at least) odd. Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. The player [I]has[/I] said what the game is about, namely, it's about that player's peasant PC finding out whether or not he is to be king of the land. If the GM decides, at the start, that "that's ridiculous" then the whole game is a waste of everyone's time. Which is to say, that would be bad GMing, at least as far as BW is concerned. The Character Burner actually has a discussion of a related GMing mistake (the Belief pertained to the resurrection of the PC's dead wife, and the GM let it happen carelessly in the game, almost as mere colour, which completely pulled the rug out from under that player's participation in the game), and cautions new BW GMs against it. This has no bearing that I can see on how Beliefs work in BW play. Beliefs aren't about what's true or false in the backstory. That is negotiated between participants - and elements of it (which Luke Crane calls "the big picture") left up to the GM - prior to starting play. Beliefs are constraints on the GM's framing of scenes. We can't tell whether your approval of your player's backstory is playing any Belief-liek role until we know how the game in which that player particpated revolved (if at all) around his divine heritage, and it what ways (if any) it did so revolve. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You're doing what? Surprising the DM
Top