NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6112917" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. As [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] noted upthread, NPCs may have opinions, and the GM will play those NPCs. But those opinions aren't the GM's opinion.The high priest can express a view. But in the sort of game I'm talking about Commune and Gate can't exist, or if they do exist can't do what you're having them do here.In 4e, for instance, Commune-style spells can substitute for a Knowledge check, but there is no "Knowledge:Morality" skill.In a different campaign, which had as one key element a couple of monks and a fallen animal king defying the heavens so as to preserve humanity from an ancient karmic retribution that the gods were sworn not to prevent, the views of the gods were clear: "Don't do that!" But the monks didn't serve the gods. They served the Buddhas. And what the Buddhas thought of the situation was, in play, left up to the players of those monks. And what animal kingship required was left up to that fallen animal king.As I've said, for me as GM to take a stand on that (including via the sorts of mechanisms you descibe) would kill the game stone dead.That sort of thing - not so much the vision, but the conflict - is quite viable, but has to be deftly handled. In my own game, for various reasons, the PC I mentioned has also added Bane, Kas and perhaps Vecna to his list of patrons, and this certainly creates a framework for applying pressure.The key is to lead the player into a situation in which two freely-chosen commitments/convictions come into conflict, and leave it to the player to choose. Or, if clever enough, reconcile.So to bring that back to your example, it's very important whether or not the player sees the situation in terms of a conflict between fidelity to the gods, and vengeance. If so, bring it on. But if not, then as GM I have to back off. I can encouage the player to look for deeper things to explore in relation to the PC (as I frequently do in relation to Vecna), but it has to be the player's choice, not mine.Sure, but I was asked how BW works, and am doing my best to explain it. In BW it's crystal clear that the player makes all the choices. The GM just provides the pressure.Well, it shows you probably shouldn't GM for [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].But that might be as much a fact about you as it is a fact about Hussar. After all, I find Hussar's reasoning completely straightforward, and was able to correctly predict in advance of his confirmation that he wouldn't have the same response to the siege as to the desert/centipede minutiae.So I don't think I'd have much trouble presenting desired scenes. And if I wasn't sure, I'd ask!This certainly describes my GMing. I've got a very good idea of my players' goals and their conceptions of their PCs - especially because quite a few of these are expressed via canonical build elements (class, theme, paragon path, epic destiny), and also because these are the bread and butter of play.Whereas they frequently catch me by surprise with their resources, even ones they've had for (real time) years of play. I guess this is because managing their resources is something I see as their job, not mine.Are you being misled by the word "Belief"? In BW, Belief - as an element of PC building and a tool for player flag-flying - is synonymous with "conviction". If someone asks you (the real world you) "What do you believe", they often aren't asking you to report you current epistemic state (eg "There's a person in front of me asking a question.") but rather your deep convictions, the things that move you, that you are passionate about.That's what Beliefs in BW are getting at.So when a player states as his/her PC's Belief "I am the true king of this land", the player is not reporting his/her epistemic state. Nor is s/he reporting the PC's epistemic state. S/he is reporting the value, the conviction, that is going to drive her PC's behaviour, and that s/he wants to have as the focus of the game.I gave the example upthread of the film "Hero"; or the film "Casablanca" would do as well: imagine starting a BW game with the Belief "Loyalty demands sacrifice". That's just begging for the GM to push things in such a direction that the ultimate choice for the player to make, in playing the PC, is whether or not to sacrifice the relationship to the object of loyalty itself, in order to preserve that object. "To save her, I have to let her go!"The whole point of BW play is that we don't assume a correct answer from the outset. As far as play is concerned, there is no pre-determined truth. If there was, play would be pointless. The campaign would be over before it began.That's not a Belief in the relevant sense. That's not a conviction, an object of passion. It's simply a report of an epistemic state.Again, this has nothing to do with convictions or motivating passions. It's about epistemic states.These two things are related. The GM and player(s) will have jointly established the basic campaign premise, backstory etc. (See the BW thread for some more detailed quotes from the rulebook.) That will include making space for the players Belief to be played out and explored in a genuine way.The GM responding to the players' inital moves in the game (say along the lines I mentioned upthread, of having the PC rabble-rouse in the streets) by having 20 guards turn up and shoot the PC would be the BW equivalent of the D&D GM who declares "As you leave the inn a red dragon breathes on you all for 88 hp damage. Sucks to be 1st level, I guess!" or who declars "Rocks fall. Everybody dies." That is, it would be the worst example of bad GMing.I don't understand your remarks about a GM deciding that a player's notes are wrong - I'm not 100% sure what that means in D&D ("We meet the mayor of GH, the GM tells us his name is Nerof Gasgal, we right that down, but then next week the GM tells us his name was actually Fonkin Hoddypeek" - are you talking about retconning?).But as far as BW is concerned, there may or may not be history in the gameworld, but if no participant - including the GM - knows what it is, it is not currently existing backstory. You might say it's backstory yet to be written, but that's verging on oxymoronic - "backstory yet to be written" is a type of real-time scripted reveal.But what if there is no history? Maybe the way that the PC goes about trying to prove that he's the true king of the land is by (i) proving his merit, and (ii) proving that true kingship belongs to the meritorious, and not simply the inheritors of others' glory. I can envisage quite a wide variety of games, with a variety of trajectories, in which the "I'm the true king" Belief plays out.Not necessarily, for the reason I just gave.Then, under this set of assumptions (which needn't hold, as I've just pointed out - kingship needn't be hereditary or historically grounded, after all) you haven't yet proven that you're the true king. But if the campaign is still ongoing, there will be future trait votes.What makes the game unplayable if it is established or authored from the outset. Proving it true in play - if that happens - is what the game is about.I also said that if the Belief comes to an end as a goal, it might continue on as a "Fate mine". But in that case, if the campaign is to keep going, the player would need to write out at least one new goal-oriented Belief. And then my same observation would be true - it would be crucial for play that the truth or falsity of the new Belief not be predetermined or already authored.I think you are somewhat fixating on this issue of "proof" or "veracity". But it's a red herring. I think you are also getting hung up on a type of literalism which seems to me to be missing the point.Put to one side, for the moment, gaming. Think about the real world. The world contained a first king. It is uncertain who that was (some, eg Rober Filmer, say Adam, but obviously not all agree). But whoever it was, that person wasn't king via heredity. Not to mention the creation of kings for all the newly-formed European states of the 19th and early 20th century, plucked form the obscurity of various German noble families. They weren't kings via heredity.Were these people true kings, or not? All of them? Some of them?Now bring in cases of usurpation - extremely common in Germanic kingships of the post-Roman period. Heck, take William the Conqueror - was he the true king of England? Or was Harold? At the Battle of Hastings, when they confronted one another, who was the true king?And now bring in the elements of romantic fantasy - Robin Hood, "the King and the Land are one", etc? Maybe our peasant PC makes crops flourish where they have been withering. Could the so-called king, sitting on his throne while the people starve, do that?My guess is that the player who declares as a Belief "I am the true king of this land" has one or more of the above examples and questions in mind. S/he probably isn't calling for a game about proving priorities of birth (although even that's conceivable if s/he has the Batard Lifepath). I think it's more likely that she's got in mind some mixture of Robin Hood, meritocratic usurpation and/or the peasant's deep and genuine connection to the land and it's people.How do I know? Did we enjoy it? Was there laughter? Drama? Were voices raised and passionate arguments made? BW play isn't a science experiment. It's not about conjecture and verification.Does the film Hero prove that loyalty requires sacrifice? Or does it prove that sacrificing yourself for politics is a folly that ruins the lives of those you love? I've got my own views (which I won't share due to board rules). But different viewers will naturally have different views. That's kind-of the point. It's not a fable for teaching children good manners - it's aspiring to be, and in my view succeeds in being, a serious work of art.I don't expect much RPGing, including much BW play, to be as serious a work of art as "Hero". Episodes of RPG play are probably only meaningful for those who actually participate in them. But for those participants, it should produce an emotional response of a comparable sort.</blockquote>

Verification