Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6111928" data-attributes="member: 42582">That's not what I said. You might be misconstruing what it is that is happening "now"."Story now" is about authorship now, and also emotional responses to authorship now. As an item in a theory, the idea of narrativism is a direct response to mid-to-late-80s, through 90s, railroading and GM-driven play in pursuit of story (the D&D poster children for such play would be Dragonlance and Dead Gods, I think). It's an attempt to set up an RPG experience in which both the players are genuine co-authors, and the experience of play produces emotional experiences comparable to those elicited via storytelling. (Classic gamist play of the White Plume Mountain variety has the first of these - genuine co-authorship by the players - but the second, if it occurs at all, is something of a side effect rather than the main goal of play.)No one is denying that Dragonlance has an epic (if somewhat hackneyed) storyline. The goal of narrativist RPGs isn't to improve on Dragonlance as plot. It's to improve on Dragonlance as play experience - for instance, by removing the GM's role as determiner of who the enemy is and who the friends.Because of my own experiences and inclinations in RPGing, I actually regard this as a key litmus test: if the GM has already decided where my PC's loyalties have to lie for the game to work, the game has failed my personal criteria of playability. (CoC one shots are an exception here, but they make no pretences to player authorship.)You can see the answer to this in my exchange with chaochou about GM permissions and genre credibility.In "core setting" BW, it would depend on what spells and items the player had access to. But if the player has access to Witch Flight, then why not? (The Magic Burner has some discussion of how to apply basic BW principles to its otherwise rather baroque magic system.)This is the fundamental point at issue. It's the player who has decided nothing is at stake, in virtue of the particular Beliefs, Traits and Instincts that s/he (Rich, in this case) has written into his/her PC.If the GM has misjudged that, the player will let him/her know! Per BW core rulebook,Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits . . . or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving!If Rich thought Pete was glossing over something important, he could have called for a test. The Adventure Burner has some discussion, beyond the core rulebook, of how to resolve disagreements between player and GM about whether or not a Belief is in play, has been resolved and hence needs replacing, etc.And the players - for instance, by calling for tests. By introducing key background elements (via Relationships, Circles, Wises, etc). By declaring actions for their PCs that relatee to those background elements that they have introduced.I know from experience that it's actually quite hard to get BW-style play out of Rolemaster, although not impossible. It's a lot easier to do so out of 4e, but there are also differences.For instance, and relating to a point that chaochou made in the BW thread, a player of a 1st level 4e PC needs the GM to do work that a player in BW doesn't. The BW player can introduce antagonists for his/her PC via the PC build rules, the Circle rules etc, and thereby pursue his/her player's Beliefs by direct action declarations, requiring the GM to respond. Whereas in 4e, while the player can introduce cosmological antagonists (eg Orcus, by building a Raven Queen worshipping PC), s/he can't introduce 1st level agents of those antagonists, and lacks the ingame resource to tackle the cosmological antagonists themselves. (Of course, it would be different if the game started at Epic tier.) Beliefs are a formal flag. There's been quite a bit of discussion, in this thread, by me and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and others, about informal flag techniques.The contribution of Beliefs to player "empowerment" is precisely this formal flag dimension. That operates in conjunction with an unequivocal statement to GMs to follow the players' formal flags in framing situations.As you note, BW doesn't rely just on Beliefs. It also relies on shared construction of backstory, which also has both formal (Relationships, Circles, Wises) and informal (brainstorming at the start of a campaign, as per the stuff I posted in the OP of the BW thread) dimensions.Yes. Chaochou and I are having a discussion about this very issue, around the notion of "GM permissions".But a clear sign that saying yes is warranted is that no Belief, Instinct or Trait is in play. Or, in a group that uses informal flags, that the players' informal flags are saying "not relevant".Associated with this are GMing techniques for weaving together various elements to ensure relevance. Chaochou gave an example upthread: if the players want to visit the barber shop, and the GM wants to set up something involving the street, then the GM can frame the barber shop so that it invites the players to engage with the street. In the desert NPC case, the GM can set things up so the players are invited to move from the city to the desert, or perhaps straight to the NPC while leaving the desert out of it (eg by relocating the NPC).That depends. [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] and I discussed this on the BW thread - in fact, it was in response to a discussion with Libramarian about this sort of issue that I started the BW thread.The answer in buy-the-book BW is that the GM's job is to call the player out and get them either to engage, or to rewrite their Beliefs, Instincts etc. Conversely, if the players want to play a "safe" game (and Libramarian thinks that 4e, at least on its face, is a safe game) then maybe BW isn't the system for them, given that many of its quirks are designed to push the players away from "safety".But it's very clear that, in buy-the-book BW, plonking the PCs down in an irrelevant desert is not how the GM is meant to call the players out. Looking over their Relationships and Beliefs, and having some antagonist there turn up and challenge them in some fashion, would be more like it.Well, this is the same issue - "safe" vs "risks". BW has a clear agenda. As [MENTION=29358]Crazy[/MENTION]Jerome pointed out in the BW thread, you could play BW safe if you wanted to, but why would you bother? The system won't work at it's best, so why not use a better system.I'm now not sure whether you're talking about the example that chaochou mentioned, or one of your own.If the player in BW wants to start as the king of the land, s/he has to build such a PC using the relevant Lifepath rules (in fact, by the book you can't start as a king, but only a Prince of the Royal Blood, and that option expressly gives every other participant a veto power). The example Luke Crane gives, of the peasant PC with the Belief "I'm the rightful king of this land", is an example in which the player is precisely inviting the GM to challenge the PC's Belief by setting up situations in which the peasant must fight to establish and prove his/her kingship.No. They state (perhaps better, express) player goals. Play is where those goals are addressed.That's fairly orthodox BW play, yes.Again, that looks pretty orthodox to me. But I don't see any connection to your earlier idea that this is the doing of a GM who finds the players' Belief ridiculous.More important than for you, I think. My players, who have fairly traditional experiences and expectations, expect me (as GM) to take the lead role in preserving genre. Particularly in a crunchy system like 4e, which has room for "abuse" or weak spots in the rules, players can have conflicts of interest - is a particular corner case the rules working properly, or an exploit that needs to be reined in? (In a game like MHRP, say, I think this sort of issue is much less likely to arise, because of its more abstract, smooth and uniform resolution mechanics.)I wouldn't say that I sort these things out in a dictatorial way, but it's not strict democracy either. The players look to me for leadership/guidance on these things, and I provide it. Sometimes when I'm not sure, or can see that something might be contentious, or be put under pressure later on in play, I'll throw it back to the group to try and establish a deeper consensus.</blockquote>

Verification